« 24 Journalists And One Blogger Talk Ethics | Main | Transparency: The Tie That Binds Online »

Being A Congressional Spouse Can Really Pay

Searching one congressman's campaign finance records can be a tedious task; searching them for all members of the House could take weeks. But put a bunch of bloggers on the task and you can get the job done in two days. That's exactly what the Sunlight Foundation did -- and on a holiday weekend.

At 2:25 p.m. on Friday, the government watchdog group invited citizen journalists to cast some sunlight on the practice of lawmakers hiring congressional spouses to work on their re-election campaigns. By 11:18 a.m. on Sunday, their work was done.

"Citizen muckrakers have investigated 437 members of Congress and tentatively found 19 spouses who were paid by a member's campaign committee, totaling some $641,200 since January 1, 2005," Bill Allison wrote at Under the Influence, one of the foundation's blogs.

Republican lawmakers who have put their spouses on campaign payrolls in that time outnumber Democrats by 13-6. One of the Republicans, Ohio's Bob Ney, pleaded guilty in September to corruption charges in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

The top spender also was a Republican. Howard (Buck) McKeon paid his wife, Patricia Kunz, $74,462. The top Democratic spender was Bart Stupak of Michigan, whose wife, Laurie Ann, netted $62,206. The rest of the top five spenders were: Louie Gohmert, R-Texas ($53,261); Richard Pombo, R-Calif. ($52,950); and Fortney (Pete) Stark, D-Calif. ($45,800).

Only 13 states were represented in the list, with five of the lawmakers in question representing California. The only other states that appeared on the list multiple times were Illinois and Texas, which had two lawmakers each who paid their spouses.

As Allison noted in announcing the project, it is not illegal for lawmakers to make such payments. But critics think it is ethically questionable. "Some members of Congress, by hiring their spouses, in effect use their campaign treasury to supplement their own bank accounts," he wrote. "The practice is legal, disclosed in obscure corners of campaign finance reports, and rarely mentioned by those who cover campaigns."

And that's what the project is all about -- highlighting facts that tend to stay buried in Washington's campaign finance bureaucracy and letting citizens decide for themselves whether those facts should matter.

"So much for what people here in Washington say about the cynicism of the public!" Ellen Miller wrote at SunSpots, another foundation blog. "Anyone who believes that citizens don't want to get involved in monitoring what their representiatives do here in Washington has just been proven wrong."

Posted by Danny | 08:39 PM

Comments

Why should this be illegal or even unethical? My guess is these wives give up enough of their own time for their husbands careers that 75k for one campaign is probably a bargain for the campaign. Also, I doubt these wives are just sitting around doing nothing, but business women with political skills and political connections worth far more than 75 grand. Unless you think wives should work for their husbands for free.

friend | 10.11.06 12:41 AM

So-ooo, Old Pete Stark has got his wife dipping deep into the cookie jar - quite an act after his eponymous acts regarding physician ownership and referrals have hamstrung rural areas in regards to outpatient surgery activities, specialty testing, and given hospitals the upper hand in that same arena - all in the name of "openness and fair competition"...Right.

John Gregg | 10.11.06 01:42 AM

"Anyone who believes that citizens don't want to get involved in monitoring what their representiatives do here in Washington has just been proven wrong."

Well, yes, that idea was self-serving dreck on the part of our illustrious leaders from the get-go.

Hogarth | 10.11.06 07:18 AM

You are ignoring the second hand smoke factor, which is ongoing and noy just during reelection campaigns. Two good examples: Debbie Dingell, spouse of, and annointed successor to, hereditary member of congress, John Dingell (D) of Michigan, who, himself, is often called the congressman from general Motors. Mrs. Dingell is the vice president of a GM sponsored "foundation." Her main qualifications seem to be... Then there's Nathan Conyers, long time Ford dealer in Michigan, who Ford chose for only the second Jaguar dealership in Michigan. Since its been a loser since the day it opened in a company built store in an upscale suburb, Ford pays Conyers to keep it open in a so-called dealer development program even though he has been a Ford dealer now for 30 years! Does the fact that Nathan is the brother of, also hereditary, congressman, John Conyers (D),Michigan, a factor in Ford's decision to carry him? When will the taxpayers and voters wise up?

Jack Lifton | 10.11.06 09:54 AM

Post a Comment