[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 5 (Monday, January 31, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 31, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                REGARDING PERSONAL USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Federal Election Commission is 
currently considering changing the rules regarding the long unenforced 
ban on personal use of campaign funds. According to published reports,

       FEC insiders say the commission rarely has had as much 
     interest--not to say implied pressure--from Capitol Hill as 
     it is getting on this subject.

  I am pleased to see that my colleagues are interested in this issue. 
And I would hope that they are pressuring the FEC to adopt the most 
stringent rules possible. However, if the pressure is for business as 
usual, I would hope the FEC would stand firm and do what is right.
  I want to remind my colleges in the Senate and those in the other 
House of Representatives, as well as the six FEC Commissioners, that on 
May 25, 1993, the Senate unanimously adopted my amendment to the 
campaign finance reform bill that restricted the use of campaign funds 
for inherently personal purposes.
  That amendment was very straight forward. It would ban individuals 
from using campaign funds for such things as home mortgage payments, 
clothing purchases, noncampaign automobile expenses, country club 
memberships, and vacations or other trips that are noncampaign in 
nature.
  There is simply no reason why Members should be permitted to use 
campaign funds for their personal needs and luxuries.
  The President, Senators and Members of the House currently earn 
$139,000 per year. This means that Senators and Representatives are in 
the top 1 percent of wage earners in the country. Let there be no 
mistake, Congressmen and Congresswomen earn a good wage--a wage that 
does not leave them poor.
  Additionally, Members are allowed to use their official office 
accounts for a variety of purposes. Members may fly back and forth to 
their district or State at the taxpayers' expense. Members are able to 
use subsidized gyms, at taxpayers' expense. Members are able to use the 
services of the attending physician, at taxpayers' expense. Members are 
able to decorate their offices, all at taxpayers' expense.
  It is worth contrasting a Member's salary and perquisites with that 
of a typical American family. According to the U.S. Census for 1990, 
the median family income in America was $30,056. With that $30,056, the 
average American family was expected to put a roof over their head, 
feed their children, and send them to school, and meet the other 
necessities of life. Mr. President, shouldn't Members of Congress be 
able to survive quite well at a salary level of $139,000 per year 
without augmenting their incomes in such a deceptive fashion.

  Mr. President, personal use of campaign funds is already illegal. 
However, the definitions are so broad that few expenditures are ever 
questioned.
  Sara Fritz, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, in her book 
``Handbook of Campaign Spending,'' calls campaign funds that are used 
for personal reasons nothing more than a personal slush fund.
  Sara Fritz wrote:

       In the spring of 1990, [a Member of Congress], and his wife 
     enjoyed a leisurely, eight day stay at South Seas Plantation 
     in Captiva, FL. Their accommodations during the first three 
     days of the visit were courtesy of the Electronics Industry 
     Association; the next five days were paid for by [the 
     member's] campaign.
       Under House and Senate ethics rules, members of Congress 
     must use campaign funds for political--not personal--
     purposes. Yet the commonly accepted definition of a political 
     expenditure has grown so broad and enforcement of the rules 
     has been so lax that congressional campaigns now routinely 
     make purchases that on their face appear to be personal, such 
     as resort vacations, luxury automobiles, expensive meals, 
     apartments, country club memberships, tuxedos, home 
     improvements, baby sitting, and car phones.

  Mr. President, I do not believe the general public is aware of how 
their campaign contributions are being used. I think it would be fair 
to say that if they did, they would be outraged, and well they should 
be.
  According to Ms. Fritz, campaign funds have been used to buy such 
items as a jumbo illuminated globe from Hammacher Schlemmer, for trips 
to exotic locals such as Thailand, Taiwan, and Italy, and for tuxedos 
and an unexplainable $299 for bow ties.
  According to Congressional Quarterly

       Democrats and Republicans may not agree on what political 
     reform is, but there is a backroom unanimity on what it is 
     not: a stiff crackdown on personal use of campaign funds.

  Representative Vic Fazio echoed that opinion when he stated,

       There's a fear that there could be a very strict 
     interpretation and a very serious break with what has been 
     the norm.

  Mr. President, it is time to break with the norm. What is occurring 
is wrong, and it must be stopped. The Senate publicly voted to do 
exactly that. There must not be any backroom deals. The FEC must act on 
this subject and it should, at minimum, follow the language passed in 
the Senate.
  I want to put the FEC and my colleagues on notice. If the new rules 
regarding this issue do not ban the personal use of campaign funds, I 
will return to the floor and offer language to do exactly that. And 
that I will continue to do so until such language is adopted into law.
  It is time the Congress, and those whose privilege it is to serve 
there, learn to live within its means. Restricting the use of campaign 
funds for personal purposes is a vital first step in that direction. 


                          ____________________