Campaign ‘trimmings’ too much

What’s “personal use” of campaign funds? Just roll through the campaign finance reports and you’ll find a lot of it: football tickets, steakhouse dinners with all the trimmings, country club dues. One politician, a legend, paid off his Jaguar from the campaign kitty.

State law is supposed to forbid the use of campaign money for personal expenses unrelated to a political campaign, the holding of public office or party position.

Over many years, “unrelated” has taken on new meaning, as campaign accounts have underwritten the lifestyles of public officials — the politicians most able to raise money from special interests, in particular, because of the power of incumbency.

We welcome an initiative by the Louisiana Board of Ethics to issue guidelines to restrict these abuses, but we caution the board that it’s dealing with vultures of uncanny ability to rationalize picking clean the carcass of regulations.

The board’s working draft includes a list of allowed expenditures, such as campaign advertising and bumper stickers, and a list of what’s banned outright, such as country club membership dues, personal residence mortgage payments and legal fees for criminal defense.

However, the proposed guidelines open up a lot of territory for abuse by allowing public officials to use the money if they meet some kind of general argument that relates the expenditures to politics.

Candidates would have the chance to explain why the spending should be considered campaign expenses or those related to the holding of office when they file their campaign finance report.

Think about the potential rationalizations for football tickets (and related fees) if a candidate says the tickets are for taking political supporters to a football game. Suddenly, season tickets are off the personal credit card and on the campaign account, and if the supporters turn out to be nephews and nieces, it’s a nice bonus.

A member of the ethics board, New Orleans lawyer Scott Schneider, is developing the guidelines, and he starts from a good place: “The goal (of the law) here was to say, ‘You should not be able to use your campaign funds to subsidize your lifestyle,’” Schneider said.

Given a history of abuses, why should anything other than direct campaign expenses be allowed?

Comments

1) Comment by phil - 03/12/2012

tradewinns - Sounds like we might have a good use for that new expensive Town Square downtown after all.

2) Comment by tradewinns - 03/12/2012

i wish i could agrre with you Phil, however i'm not a very forgive and forget person. i would take lying/cheating/stealing politicians out and, after confiscating everything of value from them ( to heck with their family, look what they have done to yours and others) i hang them in a public square as an example to others. it is a shame that people do not participate in politics because they truly believe they can help our nation reach it's potential and stay there. even if we disagree on the method of reaching the goal, that should be the only drive in politics. unfortunately politicians strive for indidvidual power, prestige and wealth. they arrive in DC poor or even middle class. they make $130+K a year plus perks. on this they maintain two residences (even if they share with others it's still expensive) and yet they leave, or stay there, as millionares! how do they do that? they all are crooked or allow others to "help" them. what about the public they are there to represent? we've gone down hill in every way from declining salary to a depleted 401K (i've lost 60% of my 401K value since '08 and haven't taken a penny out of it yet) my faith in our representative government has gone bye-bye.

3) Comment by bourbon-soda - 03/12/2012

This exemplifies "public choice economics." Government and politics are just another business and do not deserve credit for being anything more.

4) Comment by Whatnow - 03/12/2012

Where is the outrage when it happens in Washington? Plenty conflicts of interest there. Look at who get posts and bailouts after being a bundler. Politics are the same everywhere. They are all politicians trying to get rich off of the taxpayer.

5) Comment by phil - 03/12/2012

tradewinns - I can agree with you on your last statement. My little experience with politics had led me to believe that many people in politics believe is OK to steal, lie, and cheat as long as it is in the name of politics. I STILL believe we ALL have to answer to our "sins" one day.

6) Comment by phil - 03/12/2012

I agree that this issue is important and needs to be looked into. In addition I think that contributions given to local politicians by companies who do work for the local government create a conflict- of-interest situation and are a legal way to give a kickback. That is especially true when the work being done is somewhat controlled by the politician who receives the contribution. Look it up and see who is getting money from the companies who do local work.

7) Comment by tradewinns - 03/12/2012

there are no ethics in politics! if you believe there are, you are either naive or just plain stupid. spending from campaign funds on personal needs, wants, etc. is taxable income and violates election laws.

8) Comment by [e-mail] - 03/12/2012

It's all monkey business; money is power and power is money. Either of those two corrupters entices people and especially the sycophants surrounding and controlling them to abandon any pretenses of honor and abscound with as much money as they can get away with.

9) Comment by Mr. T - 03/12/2012

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I do know thar football tickets have been an acceptable campaign expense for years. If the Advocate ever did any real research, they would find that the vast majority of the Legislature is stll doing it. The point is that if this status quo is going to be changed, it needs to be done as a new law approved by the Legislature instead of an "interpretation" of an existing law by an Jindal-appointed appointed board. Otherwise, this is going o be struck down by the courts, just as Jindal's vouchers were, at great expense to us taxpayers.

10) Comment by civitasiveritas - 03/12/2012

Cousin Dave must be worried that the Advocate might actually cause grief to those who pay his bills for his self-serving ***** If the truth ever came out about Lefty, the results might be more than an ethics fine! I can understand why he is terrified of ethics. He has none! http://louisianavoice.com/2012/10/10/dave-lefty-lefkowith- more-than-a-motivational-speaker-hes-a-political-operative- looking-for-privatization-dollars/

11) Comment by bourbon-soda - 03/12/2012

Has anyone thought of just turning information about personal use of campaign funds over to the IRS?

12) Comment by lovemykids - 03/12/2012

Politicians do not have to enter the stadium to work the crowd. They could reach more people by working the tailgaters and stadium entrances.

13) Comment by Cousin Dave - 03/12/2012

If the Advocate editorial writers and their buddies on the Ethics Board crawled out of their holes once in a while, they would know that a lot of politicians work the LSU games for votes. And why not, since there are over 100,000 pople attending those games. Try not to be so stupid. It's embarrassing.