By Herman Wang, Chattanooga Times Free Press, August 9, 2007

9 Aug 2007 // For the past four years, Kim Wamp has worked on the campaign of her husband, Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., helping with fundraising and event planning.

But under a bipartisan bill the House passed last month, she and all other candidate spouses no longer would be allowed on campaign payrolls. Rep. Wamp said that, should the Senate pass similar legislation and President George Bush sign it into law, he will abide by it, but not without protest.

"She's the person I trust the most," he said of his wife. "There have been some abuses (under current law), and that needs to be weeded out, but this is the most transparent way because it's public record. It's listed how much she makes. We have kept that compensation low."

Rep. Wamp said he has paid his wife a base salary of $2,000 a month since 2003. Campaign finance disclosures show Mrs. Wamp earned $26,000 from the campaign in 2006, $22,000 in 2005 and $25,000 in 2004.

"She earns every dime of it," Rep. Wamp said. "We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of or to hide from."

Supporters of the bill, which passed in the House by voice vote, say the measure will prevent corruption and conflicts of interest.

"The public doesn't expect members of Congress to use their positions to benefit family members by putting them on your payrolls, especially when they have no qualifications for the job," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning group that applauded the bill's passage.

The bill bars federal candidates' spouses from being paid by the candidate's campaign or political action committee.

Under the bill, candidates also must disclose campaign or PAC payments to other immediate family members. The legislation does not yet have a Senate sponsor.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics recently released a report showing 64 members of Congress -- 26 Democrats and 38 Republicans -- paid family members through their committees or PACs.

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., used campaign funds to pay his daughter, Gannon Gingrey Manning, $50,400 in salary for fundraising activities during the 2004 election cycle. The congressman's campaign office said Ms. Manning's work was above board, but she eventually was taken off the payroll to avoid perceptions of ethical misconduct.

Chris Jackson, a spokesman for Rep. Gingrey's congressional office, said the congressman voted in favor of the bill but had hoped it would include bans on lawmakers converting money raised through leadership PACs for their personal use.

"He felt the bill was a missed opportunity to advance real and important reforms," Mr. Jackson said.

Other area lawmakers largely said they support the ban.

"I've never supported putting family members on payrolls," Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., said. "It just gives the wrong impression."

Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn., said he would have liked to see the bill go further by including parents, children and first cousins in the ban, as Congress' rules now ban them from congressional staffs.

"If they can't work for your congressional office, they shouldn't be able to work for your campaign," he said.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said he never has had a family member paid to work on his campaign but would prefer to leave that decision up to each lawmaker.

"I would never do it, but my preference generally would be to require disclosure and then let the voters make a decision on whether they like it or not," he said. "If voters don't like it, they can fire the member of Congress who hires the son or spouse."