Reviewing the charging documents in the case against former Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., D-Ill., it is impossible not to wonder how he got away with stealing his campaign funds for so long. For a period of at least seven years, Jackson misused his campaign funds to buy personal items, including a $40,000 Rolex watch, mink capes, mounted elk heads and Michael Jackson memorabilia, among other things.
Part of the problem is that since 2001, the Federal Election Commission ó the agency charged with monitoring campaign finances ó has specifically permitted candidates to use campaign funds to pay family members. What led the FEC to countenance this? Ironically enough, it was a request Jackson made.
In June 2001, Jackson sought a legal opinion from the FEC as to whether he could hire his wife, Sandi Jackson, as a consultant to provide fundraising and administrative support.
Federal law bars candidates from converting campaign funds to their personal use. Basically, this means candidates canít use campaign funds to cover expenses incurred irrespective of a run for office: groceries, clothing, mortgage payments and the like. Payments to family members are permitted only if they represent fair market value for bona fide campaign services.
In response to Jacksonís request, the commission issued a formal opinion concluding his campaign could, indeed, pay his wife for her services.
An article appearing in Bloomberg noted that after receiving the green light, between 2001 and 2009, Jacksonís campaign paid Sandi Jackson $247,500. The Jackson campaign seemingly tried to conceal the payments, sometimes reporting them as made to J. Donatella & Associates, the name of Sandi Jacksonís consulting firm, and other times reporting them as paid to Lee Stevens or Lee Steven at the J. Donatella firm. The Jacksonsí oldest child is named Jessica Donatella; Sandi Jacksonís middle name is Lee and her maiden name is Stevens.
While not the first candidate to hire a relative for campaign work, Jackson was the first to obtain a legal opinion from the FEC blessing the practice. Since then, numerous other campaigns have relied on the opinion to hire their own family members, often with negative consequences. Former Reps. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., and John T. Doolittle, R-Calif., whose careers ended as a result of the Jack Abramoff scandal, hired their spouses as fundraisers. Former Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, put six of his eight children ó three of whom were under the age of 16 ó on his campaign payroll. More recently, former presidential candidate Ron Paul paid salaries to six family members.
In essence, the FEC opinion allowed the Jacksons to legally transfer campaign funds into their personal accounts. Once on that path, it probably wasnít a big step for Jackson to authorize payments to his wife for work she hadnít done. Who would know, and how would they get caught?
Last year, my organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, issued a report noting that 76 members of the House of Representatives had family members on the payrolls of their campaign committees or political action committees. As we noted then, payments to family members frequently raise questions of self-dealing and ought to be prohibited. At least two states, Iowa and Louisiana, already ban such payments.