By Staff, Pasadena Star News, September 1, 2007

1 Sep 2007 // Closing the door on campaign finance abuse is about as easy as resolving the quagmire in Iraq. Every time a legislative clampdown passes, a way around it is found. Sometimes, the courts strike down the restrictions as free speech violations (see McCain-Feingold bill).

The intent of law is clear: Donations made to a candidate must be spent on the campaign and not end up lining his or her own pocket. But what about using campaign money to hire outside consultants? And what if the so-called consultant was the candidate's spouse?

Applying logic and California community property laws, money paid to a spouse from campaign donor funds is the same as paying the candidate. It's just like taking the donation and putting it in the candidate's pocket.

At least, that is the argument of Pasadena Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who wants to end the practice, which although legal, is seen as somewhat politically risky and often as seedy or unethical. Schiff's bill will make it illegal for spouses of candidates or lawmakers to perform campaign duties for pay. He described the practice in an L.A. Times report as "a grievous conflict of interest."

Schiff's bill has received plenty of support in the House, and he's looking for a sponsor in the U.S. Senate, his aide told our editorial board. Meanwhile, Schiff wishes that the state Legislature would run with the idea, making it illegal for state lawmakers to pay spouses out of campaign cash. Already, seven other states have similar laws.

We support Schiff's bill, which would apply to members of Congress. If a similar bill were to arise in Sacramento, it would deserve a thorough review and hearing. Interesting to see which state legislators would oppose it. According to the Times, state lawmakers paid $1.2 million in cash from their campaigns to spouses, sons, daughters and even companies that hired them within the last seven years.

Of course, not every such hire constitutes an abuse. Certain spouses may indeed possess campaign expertise, or are the most trusted person for the job, and in that case would earn every penny.

The bill really is intended to go after the abusers. For instance, the wife of fellow Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., ran his fundraising campaign and skimmed 15 percent commission from every donation, the Associated Press reported. Last year, Doolittle's wife was paid $100,000 from the campaign cash.

It's unfortunate that some arrangements that seem on the up and up would also be eliminated in one fell swoop under Schiff's bill, which is backed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW found that of 337 House members in top committee spots, 64 paid relatives through campaign committees or a political action committee (PAC), reported the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in July. CREW says the essential problem remains: Money going to a spouse, even for work done at marketable rates, goes into the candidate's household income.

When someone donates money to a candidate, they are not expecting the money to end up in the candidate's household income, either directly, or indirectly. That is the rub. And the reason why laws ought to be tightened to prevent such misuse of campaign cash.

We are not that naive to think that even with this bill or a similar one out of Sacramento, political campaigns will be run cleanly and free of abuse. But any measure that moves in that direction should be considered.