By Staff, Toledo Blade, July 30, 2007

30 Jul 2007 // ONE of the most insidious scams perpetrated in recent years by members of Congress has been to put their husbands or wives on their campaign payroll, thereby enriching themselves illegally from political funds.

This form of incipient corruption ought to be stopped and it could be if the U.S. Senate goes along, as it should, with legislation approved in the House.

The bill, with bipartisan sponsorship by Reps. Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, and Mike Castle, Republican of Delaware, would bar lawmakers from paying their spouses for campaign work. And it also would require public disclosure of other family members on a member's campaign payroll. Spouses could still volunteer.

The legislation was prompted by egregious examples of greed from both sides of the aisle. Rep. Bobby Rush, Democrat from Illinois, for example, paid his wife, three children, two daughters-in-law, and a sister-in-law out of his campaign fund.

But what attracted national attention was news that Rep. John Dolittle, Republican of California, "hired" his wife, Julie, as a fund-raising consultant. She reportedly took a 15 percent cut of anything she raised, and made $90,000 on just one lucrative event.

Mrs. Doolittle also worked for the infamous Jack Abramoff, and the couple's home in northern Virginia was raided by the FBI as part of an investigation that grew out of the jailed lobbyist's activities.

One watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - an oxymoronic title if we've ever heard one - reported that 64 House members, many of them committee chairmen or ranking minority members, paid family from campaign funds or political action committees during the past three election cycles.

Among them were the wife and daughter of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Separately, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2005 that Rep. Richard Pombo, Republican of California, paid a generous $217,000 to family members in one two-year period - more than Mr. Pombo's opponent spent on his entire campaign.

Income from these political "jobs," if indeed any work was actually performed, flows back to the member of Congress. "You're essentially telling a [campaign] donor, 'Part of what you give to my campaign, you give to me.' That's inherently a conflict," Mr. Schiff told the Washington Post.

Such schemes are the result of the blind eye turned to ethics during the long stretch of one-party rule on the part of Republicans, which ended with last fall's elections. Some enterprising Democrats simply followed suit, knowing the GOP wouldn't blow the whistle.

While some still argue that barring spouses from the campaign payroll would discriminate against less-well-off candidates, this open pipeline from political contributors to members' personal wallets cannot be tolerated and Congress should cut it off.