Congress: Putting Their Money Where Their Mouth Isn't?
Professor Warren's post about Senator Bunning's disdain for "government handouts" -- also known as higher education funding -- raises a few issues about Congressional members in general. First, how do lawmakers' words line up with their actions? Second, do Congressional members have access to so much free money that they eventually forget what it feels like to live life without a readily-available war chest? Since Senator Bunning is on the hot seat today, let's take a look at these questions and see if his situation offers us any answers.
As for the first question, how much stock should the voting public put in the generic issue statements that elected lawmakers keep handy to ensure they're supporting key issues? Take, for example, Senator Bunning's issue statement on "Education" on his Senate website. Sure sounds great, doesn't it? Here's my favorite part:
"Kentucky has one of the most affordable networks of colleges and technical schools in the country. But the costs are still too high for many students and parents. That is why I introduced a bill to create the “Pell Grants Plus” program to provide an additional $1,000 in Pell Grants for students who take a rigorous high school curriculum. Also, Congress has increased Pell Grant funding 32 percent in the last 5 years to over $13 billion per year. That is good news for the thousands of Kentuckians relying on federal student aid to go to college."
But wait -- this doesn't square so well with his statements yesterday, does it? Let's reiterate what professor Warren encountered from Senator Bunning: "He explained that he paid for college for his seven children and he didn't ask for a 'government hand-out.' He wanted to know when thinking had changed that families should expect 'government handouts' if they wanted to send their kids to college.
Let's move on to the second issue. Congress is full of wealthy members; that we know. Senator Bunning, for example, has a net worth between $500,000 and $1 million, which ranks only 67th in the Senate. If the American Dream holds water, we'd like to think that they built those assets through some personal elbow grease. You never know, that might be true. But the money trail doesn't end with personal bank accounts and investments. Election to Congress comes with spoils of victory: access to the exclusive, members-only world of free money (also known as political contributions).
Senator Bunning has amassed nearly $6.5 million dollars of campaign contributions in five years. He is listed as having $90,000 "cash on hand." He "raised" $5 million in 2004 alone for his re-election. Maybe his constituents just love all the hard work he's doing... but oops, nearly 50% of that money came from out of state.
Ah, but Senator Bunning's "self-financing" of his war chest? $0. Yup... zero. Maybe I'm stretching here, but how hard can it be to pay for your childrens' education when you have a net worth of at least half a million dollars and you don't have to put a penny of that money into getting elected for a job that comes with a multi-million dollar expense account? Sounds to me like Senator Bunning might not be 100% in touch with the life of an average middle-class family.
Maybe these war chests go to lawn signs and campaign newsletters. Maybe we can trust that members never enjoy their spoils. But can anyone with millions of dollars in free money a finger's length away really remember what it's like to get an electric bill they can't pay or dread rent day at the beginning of the month?
I can't say for sure, but I have my doubts.
Comments (25)
A couple of weeks ago a friend informed me that when a Congressman or Senator leaves office they can take, for their own bank account, any money left in their campaign war chest. Is this true? My friend insisted this is a major source of "retirement" funds for politicians. If it is true, I am not too happy about that.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 12, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's truth to that, but it's complex. This is from memory, but they can take campaign contributions but may have to declare them as income if they are used for purely personal purposes, rather than, say, for funding other candidates or contributing to party organizations. There are, however, forms of Congressional compensation, which in the past included a "stationery allowance", that is essentially unaccountable.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 13, 2007 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be a bit fair even to senators, how many other jobs require one to spend millions of dollars to get, then similar millions every two or four or six years to keep? And I don't think those war chests can be spent on anything but campaigns. The senator cannot send his kids to college with them.
May 13, 2007 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a link from my related comment on Dr. Warren's post. I think you guys are missing the point, which isn't surprising because even though I lobby members of a the US Congress for a living -- for a non-profit group -- I didn't get it either until a Senate staffer took my blindfold off, as it were. The replies to the Warren post are talking about how useful a service requirement would be and debunking the notion that helping someone go to school is a "government handout." Here, you are sort of analogizing Bunning to Geo. Bush I who was lampooned for not knowing what a supermarket scanner was. If only he had similar experience, or even remembered it, surely he would get it goes this line of reasoning. I hate to say it, but don't bother trying to reason with folks who "think" like Bunning. The story below illustrates why.
So there I was meeting with this centrist/moderate Senator's staffer a few years ago and we were talking about welfare "reform" (not Bill Clinton's greatest accomplishment ... to the contrary). I was ticking off a list of reasons supporting my perspective, and after agreeing with me, she basically said the following, "what you don't understand is this: it's not that they don't get it, it's that they don't care." This may seem odd since they are elected by their constituents and theoretically should support something that, in the case of college assistance, will help a big chunk of their electorate. Alas, these are not my father's Republicans -- they were then labelled Rockefeller R's. These R's answer only to the big check writers and to blazes with the rest of us. They tend to throw out a lot of rhetoric to cause the uninformed to react negatively to stuff they wish to oppose, e.g. "government handout," "entitlements, "preferences." They're trying to get folks to react viscerally to the label and to jump to their camp of opposition, which brings me to my favorite rant: the lack of critical thinking skills among a big chunk of the electorate. Until folks have the ability to see through these judgemental, condemning buzzwords and assess the viability of programs and proposals devoid of the Bunning imposed baggage, our fight will continue to be an uphill one. I do think the struggle to send your kids to college is one that many folks can agree with, and they would not agree with Bunning's characterization. But I also suspect that this is not the kind of comment that could cost him an election, but you never know ...
May 13, 2007 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make a great point. However, I'd argue that the rules are sufficiently broad that the money a senator raises can be spent on lifestyle stuff that is very meanginful, all under the cause of a future campaign. How many high-end dinners at restaraunts headed by celebrity chefs do you think a sitting senator enjoys over the years and charges to their campaign?
My job has an expense account attached to it. I remember a colleague telling me that, "'problems start only when you start when you start to assume that what you spend on the expense account is what you should spend in real life. Suddenly you think "$200 dinner? Bargain!'" and then you foot the bill on your own visa check card, without much thinking, because you got used to the expense account lifestyle.
Yes, they can only use their money for election purproses. But those moments become such a common events for them that they learn to live like millionaires.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 13, 2007 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, so the only limitation is that if they take their war chests for themselves, they have to pay taxes?
I know everyone hates paying taxes and all, but I also remember once interviewing a financial planner for an article and really grilling him about the tax consequences of his strategy. His best answer was: "You do remember, I hope, that while taxes stink that you only pay them when you MAKE money."
I know I'd be pretty happy to move a $6 million warchest into my checking account even if I had to pay half of it in taxes. Hell, I'd be willing to pay the taxes immediately by a check in which I'd written in the memo line "Suckas!"
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 13, 2007 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to consider Bunning's reputation as a fruitcake in assessing his political views.
May 13, 2007 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless he pays his wife 15% of all contributions as a commission. Or simply puts the kids on the payroll at inflated salaries and so set them send themselves to college.
A campaign warchest is pretty much equivalent to an unlimited expense account. You can bet pretty good money that no politician out there is paying out of pockets for gasoline or restaurant meals, each can easily be cast in terms of coming to or going from a campaign event. There is a lot of gravy flowing through a senatorial campaign, you have to be fairly naive to think the candidate is not taking a taste here and there.
May 13, 2007 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm...I don't think so. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I know there are extremely tasty fruitcakes, typically with a puddinglike batter and months of soaking in Myers' Dark Rum. Bunning, at best, is like a plastic-wrapped fruitcake that simply migrates from unfortunate Christmas recipient year after year, with no observable degradation of product quality.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 13, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
My god, you have a new term for certain incumbents -- the regifted senator.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 13, 2007 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
(musing) while I did also have some unpaid lobbying experience on the Hill, most of my legislative branch experience was as network architect for the Library of Congress. Rather than fruitcake, a lucky subset of the staff would be invited to a party, every month or two, held by the Overseas Acquisition Division.
This division has about a dozen buying offices around the world, usually as part of US embassies. In addition to the books, assorted national products, of various degrees of yumminess, would come in the diplomatic bags. I was partial to the chocolate-covered giant ants from Nigeria, which were like slightly tart Raisinets.
Mere Congressmen were not gifted with such things.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 13, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let them eat ants!
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 13, 2007 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Bunning - great pitcher, lousy Senator.
Tom
May 13, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
But well-informed, eh?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 13, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
With respect to the rule described in comments above, regarding politicians being able to take their war chests for personal use so long as they pay taxes, I don't think that's correct.
Conversion of campaign funds to personal use is presently prohibited by 2 U.S.C. 439a(b) and 11 C.F.R. 113.2. Interestingly, the latter regulation allowed for such conversion (though partially restricted) for funds held before the end of 1989, which might be what the comments here are based on. I believe that allowence ended, however, for all member serving in the 103rd Congress and beyond. See 11 CFR 113.2(e).
Interestingly, a loophole appears to exist in the use restrictions for campaign accounts. 2 U.S.C. 439a(a)(6) is a catch-all provision that allows use of the funds for "any other lawful purpose" other than the restrictions on conversion to personal use. Also, section (a)(3) expressly allows for the funds to be transferred to 170(c) charitable organizations.
Although I've never done the research, I'd be interested in knowing how this catch-all provision has been used by candidates/officeholders and interpreted by the FEC in its advisory opinions.
I'd also be curious to know how frequently candidates have established charitable foundations or other organizations -- particularly where they hold salaried positions within those organizations -- that receive campaign money.
--Kevin
May 13, 2007 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the excellent research.
In there, perchance, an issue with unused campaign funds being transferred to other candidates, PACs or party that would also create a sense of influence and entitlement among those who raise the cash?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 13, 2007 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pop star?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 13, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's not that they don't get it, it's that they don't care.
that's a very important point to emphasize. I'd also suggest that the "don't care" part isn't personal since the "don't care" part only means that they've heard what you have to say before but it doesn't solve the problem.
one of my favorite bosses once told me: "i like employees who bring me solutions instead of problems."
bill clinton's work-to-welfare thing might not have been great but it was a solution since "business owners got governmental kickbacks to hire 'undesireable employees'," "'undesireable employees' got a second look" and blighted neighborhods had cash flowing into them.
it looks like politicians are trying this "solution" again with the minimum hike: "small businesses get governmental kickbacks," "employees get a raise" and the community gets a bigger tax base.
how perfect it works out is debatable but, as a lobbyist, you get what you want if you can align the planets...
To boldly go...
May 13, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Section 113.2(c) of the Regs, for example:
"(c) May be transferred without limitation to any national, State, or local committee of any political party;"
Whatever speculation there may be about campaign funds, one thing is clear -- the advantages of being an incumbent extend more broadly to one's party, and nobody on the inside forgets where those checks come from.
--Kevin
May 13, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for setting the record straight, Kev.
I love the Internets... if you don't know something for sure, one of your fellow readers/writers/commenters does!
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 13, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember reading about John Glen's campaign for president. He lost the race and wound up owing over $3 million (more) in expenses.
At the time, many small business owners were upset because they got stiffed and felt snubbed.
For the 2008 election, I donated $25.00 to Ron Paul.
I'm not making other donatations because John Kerry, in 2004, with a flush bank account, chose not to combat the voting fraud in Ohio even though he hired lawyers to get Ralph Nader kicked off ballots-- an action I consider unamerican.
Thus, even when politicians spend your money, they often spend it in detestible ways.
To boldly go...
May 13, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
the other perk they get is a taxpayer funded office they can use to "finish their legislative duties". These are really used for them to transition from lawmaker to lobbyist -- and we pay the bill.
May 13, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you talk about free money -- I thought you were referring to tax dollars -- which are spent with such reckless abandon one has to assume these lawmakers regard it as free money.
May 13, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's no accident thatexpense accounts are called "swindle sheets." I have never heard of a politition going to jail for ripping off his own campaign. That's why I have considered our present system institutionalized bribery for a long, long time. The Cunninghams etc. have to be incredibly greedy and stupid to get caught taking a bribe.
May 13, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
institutionalized bribery
I'm glad that someone else thinks the same way I do!
In America, we publicize the bribe to attract more takers... it's sad to say that "people are bribed," I mean "paid" to do the work of "the master," I mean "the people."
I liked the line, from the Phantom of the Opera Movie, "keep your hand at the level of your eyes..."
To boldly go...
May 13, 2007 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink