When CPU Means "Converted to Personal Use"

Among the electronically savvy in the blogosphere CPU engenders thoughts of little electronic gadgets. To those of us in the political world it has an entirely different meaning “converted to personal use.” It is a "no-no" and results in politicians facing hefty fines or jail time. In the purest sense, CPU occurs when a politician uses funds raised for his or her campaign for personal items like income, buying a car, or maybe a fancy commode – you get the idea.

But, in recent years, there has been a phenomenon that has allowed politicians to convert campaign funds to personal use, and it’s totally legal. They hire their spouse as a “campaign consultant.”

I offer for example, Representative Bob Filner (D - San Diego) who has paid his wife over half a million dollars from his campaign. While what Filner has done is not illegal, most would argue that it is really, really unethical. In fact Assemblyman Juan Vargas (D- San Diego), a challenger to Bob Filner, has made that statement by attacking the “arrangement” between Mr. Filner, Mrs. Filner and Mr. Filner’s contributors. Of course, Assemblyman Vargas “forgot” that he hired his wife’s brother in a similar, albeit different arrangement – you can read all about it in the San Diego Tribune.

Hiring family members is not something only done by Democrats; there have been plenty of Republicans who do the same. Former Representative Bob Dornan’s family made out pretty well running his campaign and mail fundraising gig. Representative Dana Rohrabacher has paid his wife to work on his campaigns. Although, it should be noted that Rhonda was working on campaigns long before she married Mr. Rohrabacher; and that is significantly different than Mrs. Filner who had never been a consultant before and has never had any other clients.

Paying a spouse from your own campaign funds seems to be a convenient loophole that allows politicians to take campaign contributions and then convert them to their own personal wealth. Something needs to be done to stop this practice; it is a violation of the public trust for an elected official to use their position to enrich themselves.

But, in crafting the solution to this unsavory practice a provision must be allowed that does not prevent a legitimate business in campaigns, fundraising, etc. by the spouse of an elected official (as in the case of Mrs. Rorhabacher). Perhaps, a conflict of interest provision should be put in place, allowing the spouse of an elected official to run campaigns, raise funds, etc. just not for his or her own spouse. That would at least address the obvious problem of taking a contribution and “paying” it to one’s own spouse (thereby increasing one's own wealth), and at the same time not prevent a spouse from legitimately operating a political business.