Night of the Campaigning Dead
I look forward to the day when it is difficult for me to write a post for this blog. When that day comes, it will mean that our government will finally be operating without the scourge of corruption hindering its ability to fulfill its purpose.
Today is not that day.
I had thought it might be. For almost two weeks I hadn't heard of any major instances of corruption and my hopes were raised that it might remain as such until Thursday.
Then I opened up social media, saw a discussion about 'zombie campaigns', and my once-high hopes were suddenly dashed.
(The article I saw was this one from the Tampa Bay Times, which will serve as the source for most of the facts in this blog post. Since this is a recent report, other sources are unfortunately few and far between).
Zombie campaigns are not necessarily corruption per se. They are not directly an example of special interests using money to influence politics. However, they are an incentive of taking advantage of corruption, and so they are still within the scope of this blog.
Zombie campaigns refers to the use of campaign funds of dead politicians. For example, a consultant was paid $100,000 in campaign funds by late Congressman George Takai (not to be confused with the famous actor and Twitter personality with a similar name), which would be normal political activity had Takai not been dead the entire time.
What is perhaps more bizarre is that the use of the campaign funds of the dead is not the most egregious violation of ethics reported on by the Tampa Bay Times. At least when the dead's money is used, it is mere embezzlement. However, sometimes the practice of using campaign funds post-campaign is undertaken by the former politicians themselves, a practice made far worse by the oath that they took to uphold the nation's laws and work in its best interests.
Some of this spending is not overly egregious. Charles C. Cox, for example, spent the vast majority of his campaign funds on charitable donations (which his supporters would likely not have taken issue with), although some was spent on other political donations. On the other hand, Gary Miller spent his campaign funds on such highly campaign-related causes as his rent payments, phone bills, and payments to his family.
Surprisingly enough, this is somehow not the worst case of misuse of campaign funds by a politician who has left office. That title would have to go to Mark Foley, a man who resigned from Congress over the fact that he sent sexual text messages to underage staffers. (The fact that he is not in prison is an issue for another blog, but certainly one worth addressing.) Although he resigned in disgrace in 2006 over his sexual misconduct, he nonetheless continues to draw funds from his congressional campaign fund for his own personal use. He claimed to have the right to use the money because he was considering another Congressional campaign, in spite of this being obviously ludicrous as his known record as a sex offender makes him all but ineligible for elected office.
Strangely enough, this is not prosecuted by any oversight group designed to prevent misuse of campaign funds. While it is against regulations for campaigns to spend their money on anything not directly related to their campaigns, anyone who has done work in accounting or filed taxes knows fully that rules like these can be easily bent to allow unintended spending (what, for example, constitutes a "home office"?) As a result, it is easy for politicians (and their cadre of financially experienced staffers) to use funds in a way that is just barely legal, preventing them from coming under any serious judicial scrutiny. As such, men like Gary Miller and Mark Foley will likely never be prosecuted for their betrayal of the trust of their donors by using their money for personal gain.
Thankfully, some groups have begun to take action. This, of course, includes the Tampa Bay Times, who took the initiative to run the expose on the problem of post-campaign campaign spending. But it is not just newspapers. According to this article, the Campaign Legal Center filed a petition based on the results of the Times report that pushed for rules that would prevent this corruption from continuing. Moreover, a bill has been introduced to Congress that would limit such spending. Whether these measures will be helpful, only time will tell, but the mere fact that we know about this form of corruption gives some glimmer of hope for a future without zombie campaigns.
Today is not that day.
I had thought it might be. For almost two weeks I hadn't heard of any major instances of corruption and my hopes were raised that it might remain as such until Thursday.
Then I opened up social media, saw a discussion about 'zombie campaigns', and my once-high hopes were suddenly dashed.
(The article I saw was this one from the Tampa Bay Times, which will serve as the source for most of the facts in this blog post. Since this is a recent report, other sources are unfortunately few and far between).
Zombie campaigns are not necessarily corruption per se. They are not directly an example of special interests using money to influence politics. However, they are an incentive of taking advantage of corruption, and so they are still within the scope of this blog.
Zombie campaigns refers to the use of campaign funds of dead politicians. For example, a consultant was paid $100,000 in campaign funds by late Congressman George Takai (not to be confused with the famous actor and Twitter personality with a similar name), which would be normal political activity had Takai not been dead the entire time.
What is perhaps more bizarre is that the use of the campaign funds of the dead is not the most egregious violation of ethics reported on by the Tampa Bay Times. At least when the dead's money is used, it is mere embezzlement. However, sometimes the practice of using campaign funds post-campaign is undertaken by the former politicians themselves, a practice made far worse by the oath that they took to uphold the nation's laws and work in its best interests.
Some of this spending is not overly egregious. Charles C. Cox, for example, spent the vast majority of his campaign funds on charitable donations (which his supporters would likely not have taken issue with), although some was spent on other political donations. On the other hand, Gary Miller spent his campaign funds on such highly campaign-related causes as his rent payments, phone bills, and payments to his family.
Surprisingly enough, this is somehow not the worst case of misuse of campaign funds by a politician who has left office. That title would have to go to Mark Foley, a man who resigned from Congress over the fact that he sent sexual text messages to underage staffers. (The fact that he is not in prison is an issue for another blog, but certainly one worth addressing.) Although he resigned in disgrace in 2006 over his sexual misconduct, he nonetheless continues to draw funds from his congressional campaign fund for his own personal use. He claimed to have the right to use the money because he was considering another Congressional campaign, in spite of this being obviously ludicrous as his known record as a sex offender makes him all but ineligible for elected office.
Strangely enough, this is not prosecuted by any oversight group designed to prevent misuse of campaign funds. While it is against regulations for campaigns to spend their money on anything not directly related to their campaigns, anyone who has done work in accounting or filed taxes knows fully that rules like these can be easily bent to allow unintended spending (what, for example, constitutes a "home office"?) As a result, it is easy for politicians (and their cadre of financially experienced staffers) to use funds in a way that is just barely legal, preventing them from coming under any serious judicial scrutiny. As such, men like Gary Miller and Mark Foley will likely never be prosecuted for their betrayal of the trust of their donors by using their money for personal gain.
Thankfully, some groups have begun to take action. This, of course, includes the Tampa Bay Times, who took the initiative to run the expose on the problem of post-campaign campaign spending. But it is not just newspapers. According to this article, the Campaign Legal Center filed a petition based on the results of the Times report that pushed for rules that would prevent this corruption from continuing. Moreover, a bill has been introduced to Congress that would limit such spending. Whether these measures will be helpful, only time will tell, but the mere fact that we know about this form of corruption gives some glimmer of hope for a future without zombie campaigns.
I had heard of times when politicians used their campaigns funds for things that were questionable but I really didn't know the extend until now. I especially haven't heard of zombie funds which seems ridiculous to me that people could be consciously using a dead person's money, seems heartless to me.
ReplyDeleteWow, I remember learning about situations like these in APUSH back in high school, but I had never heard to them referred to as 'zombie campaigns' before. I think it's a good thing that a bill has been introduced to Congress hopefully to combat this from happening. It's situations like these that simply cause people to mistrust the government even more than before (if possible).
ReplyDeleteI like the way you started the blog, it was almost like reading the diary of an apocalypse survivor. I have never heard of Zombie campaigns until I read this. It's so disturbing that people will take advantage of the dead to help with funding.
ReplyDeleteHi Jacob! This was a really interesting read. I did not know this was a real thing, and you have pushed me to do more research into the topic. Not only is this disrespectful to the dead, but also just immoral. You went on to list the other horrible things politicians do with their campaign funds, and Gary Miller's use particularly annoyed me. The funds that come from a campaign are supposed to be used in order to better civic life, instead he was using his funds for personal issues. I can't wait to read what you write next!
ReplyDelete