Centerfield

It looks like DeLay has brought the practice to a new level, however. The only one who seems close is "Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.: Wife Arlene Willis serves as congressional chief of staff at a salary of nearly $111,000," and if she is working full-time in that position, it may be legit. From what I've heard, Mrs. DeLay works from home (as I do). Does she really earn her pay in a manner that would be credible were she not a relative?

Seriously now. You may be surprised to hear this, but I was delighted, falling down on my knees thankful, when the Democrats were swept from Congress in 1994. Power corrupts, and the Dems had controlled the House my entire life. DeLay has restored the practices that made the Democrats smell in 1994.

All too true, Rick, and it shouldn't surprise anyone. The incumbent party is always corrupt (the longer the incumbency, the greater the corruption) and the minority party is always going to restore ethics and accountability. And they usually do--for a brief while. But then they're in power, and power corrupts...

I don't think DeLay has taken patronage to any new heights, but as I've said before that excuse isn't going to get him much sympathy because he's universally detested and feared. Deputy Dan Has No Friends. But if he doesn't resign then I'll wager it isn't the patronage that'll get him. It'll be his involvement in the Indian Gaming corruption. Any bets?

I'm not sure I see what's wrong with paying relatives with CAMPAIGN funds, as DeLay, Sanders, and many others on the SFGate list were doing. I don't care how they spend campaign funds. Maybe their contributors are entitled to speak up on the subject, but it's not my money they're spending.

And as a matter of principle, what is wrong with, say, John Kerry paying his daughters for the tremendous amount of work they did on the campaign? Kerry's 2 daughters could undoubtedly afford to spend a year or 2 years working for free, but I don't know that we should adopt yet more rules which make it all but impossible for non-millionaires to run for high office. If Kerry were poor and his daughters wanted to work his campaign for 2 years, they couldn't afford to do so unless they got paid, as many other campaign workers are.

Why I offered a sucker bet, Pat. You'll never ever in my lifetime get Congress to vote such patronage out as a legitimate ethics charge. There's nothing illegal about it, it just looks bad. But DeLay has other skeletons waiting in his closet. And very few friends.

Tully,

I certainly agree with your assessment of DeLay, and have made the same point elsewhere. He's become an inside-the-beltway player in a party risen to prominence on an outside-the-beltway platform. And you're quite right about the Indian gaming, but I can't say much about that because of my previous job.

But on the original point, I don't think it even looks particularly bad to hire relatives with campaign funds. Taxpayer funds, yes, but campaign funds are entirely different, to my mind. I may be running for the state legislature in a few years. It would be entirely proper for me to pay some college students to deliver signs, fliers, etc. to residents. If I can pay a stranger, why shouldn't I pay my college-student brothers to do the same work? Granted there are always potential problems when a relative of the candidate is working with a campaign, but those problems are pretty much independent of whether the relative is a volunteer or a paid consultant.

The potential problem is disguised bribery. If you can't pay off a candidate, but you can donate funds that will be used to give a relative a no-show job, that's pretty close.

I don't know how much effort the DeLay relatives put into their jobs, but if they are being paid at an above-market rate for their labor, that would suggest an abuse of office for personal enrichment.

Generally, donors don't mind their contributions being "abused" in this way. It's the public that minds.

The problem doesn't arise with non-relative employees, since donors know they can't buy influence by enriching people who are not related to the candidate.

Rick,

I have to disagree with you there. Having prosecuted many public corruption cases, I can tell you that crooked politicians are perfectly willing to whore themselves for the benefit of their good friends (not to mention mistresses, illegitmate children, etc). Usually, those friends are somehow funneling money back to the politician, but not always.

Anyway, most of the politicians out there these days are fund-raising so hard and so frequently, I doubt that having a relative on the payroll would make all that much difference to them. If a congressman needs $1 million to be reelected every 2 years, he's going to work just as hard, and be just as nice to major contributors, whether any of those funds are going to family members or not.

Now, if he disguised it by having, say, a consulting firm or a printer or somebody hire the relative instead of the campaign, that might show improper pressure being placed on those vendors, but other than that, I'm ok with the practice.

I agree, Pat. Paying relatives for campaign work is nothing new and can be accounted for, but DeLay is involved in a seemingly constant stream of skirting ethics rules (or at least rubbing up real close to violations). The idea people get when they see all this money flowing in and out of his or his family's or his PAC's hands looks as if people can easily buy influence in the legislative process. Republicans are saying all these foriegn junkets are taken advantage of by both parties and I agree, but it's who pays for these trips not ho many or where they take them.

Also, has anyone wondered why a former exterminator from Texas is one of the most influential, hard-nosed and effective members of Congress? Perhaps he's so effective becuase he skirts the rules.

term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits term limits

the only answer