A story in today’s Roll Call (subscription required) notes that California GOP Congressman John Doolittle’s wife is earning more money than ever this year from fundraising activities on behalf of her husband.

It’s been reported earlier – including in a blog here last week – that she’s been collecting a 15 percent commission on all contributions to her husband’s leadership PAC. Julie Doolittle runs a fundraising business out of the family home in Oakton, Virginia – though it doesn’t advertise and she is apparently the only employee.

Now it seems she’s collecting even more money from her commissions – but this time it’s coming from donations to Doolittle’s campaign committee.

In other words, if the candidate’s wife “raises” a $1,000 contribution for her husband’s reelection, $150 of that is passed directly to the candidate’s own family. You can see the expenditures for yourself on OpenSecrets. So far this election cycle, Doolittle’s reports are showing a total of $54,163 going to “Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions” – Julie Doolittle’s one-person business operating out of the family home.

Federal laws specifically prohibit the “personal use” of campaign contributions, though the Federal Election Commission has interpreted this rather generously. It’s ruled in the past – for instance in an advisory opinion issued in 2001 – that family members working on campaigns may be paid salaries, as long as the salary is commensurate with the going rate for that kind of work.

I remember a case back in the early 90s when Alan Keyes actually paid himself a hefty salary out of campaign funds while he was campaigning for a U.S. Senate seat from Maryland. His argument was that as a full-time candidate, he was entitled to a salary commensurate with his professional talents. The FEC agreed.

All of which makes it sound like the Doolittle family’s convenient arrangement won’t be blocked by the FEC or anyone else. All we can do is monitor the money – and I see in Doolittle’s latest FEC filing, for the month of June – that Julie Doolittle’s Sierra Dominion firm collected yet another $6,985.99 from her husband’s campaign. 

Since we still haven’t hit the peak fundraising season for congressional campaigns – that comes in September and October – the Doolittle family will be reaping quite a bonanza this year from the “business” of running for reelection.

That kind of financial ingenuity might make an interesting case study for the Harvard Business School, but it deserves an “F” in civics class – and far greater scrutiny from the press, the public and the FEC.

0 Comments

What a deal. Your husband is a member of Congress. You’re his spouse and you start up a business raising money for his leadership PAC, and collecting a 15% commission on every dollar the PAC raises.

That’s the essential scenario for Congressman John T. Doolittle (R-Calif) and his wife Julie, and the details are spelled out on the front page of today’s Washington Post. The story also dwells on expensive gifts that Doolittle’s  PAC – the Superior California Federal Leadership Fund – spent money on, but I’d like to focus today on that fundraising commission.

You can find an example of the expenditures on the OpenSecrets website here. When I added up the numbers this morning, I found just under $70,000 paid out in the current election cycle alone to “Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions Inc.” of Oakton, Virginia. Sierra Dominion is the name of company run by Doolittle’s wife. As the Post explains:

All told, Julie Doolittle’s firm – run out of the couple’s home in Oakton with no phone listing or Web site and no other known employee – has received commissions totaling $169,146 since its founding in March 2001, according to FEC records and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The article cites a comment from Kenneth Gross, one of the capital’s most prominent money-and-politics lawyers (and former chief counsel at the FEC) that leadership PACs don’t have the same restrictions on “personal use” that regular campaign committees have.

Which makes me wonder, why not?

Fundraising is one of the biggest industries in Washington. More time and effort is spent wringing money out of donors seeking to boost their influence than almost anything else. Political fundraising events are held virtually every day (and night) that Congress is in town. Look at the contribution records of virtually any politician in Washington and you’ll find dozens, if not hundreds, of contributions from every interest group under the sun – all with specific legislative agendas.

The only way that politicians have gotten away with such transparent conflicts of interest is because of the understanding – backed by bribery laws – that none of the money actually winds up in the pockets or bank accounts of the members themselves.

Whatever the fine print of federal election laws governing leadership PACs, Doolittle’s arrangement of paying his wife 15 percent of every dollar the PAC raises is a violation of that hands-off policy. The more his PAC raises, the richer his own household becomes.

I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t comment on the legalities of leadership PACs versus campaign committees. I am a citizen, though, and from that perspective this flat out stinks.

0 Comments

• Roll Call reports that the Justice Department subpoenaed the e-mails of Rep. [sw: William Jefferson] (D-La.) in the ongoing bribery investigation. Jefferson will have the chance to challenge the release of certain e-mails under the Speech and Debate Clause. The congressman could "be allowed to review them and decide whether he wants to try to assert his privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause and withhold them from the federal prosecutors. Jefferson would then have to file a legal motion in federal court in Alexandria outlining the reasons for why they should not be turned over to federal investigators."
• The manager of MZM, Inc., Richard A. Berglund, was accused of violating FEC rules by illegally donating money to Rep. [sw: Virgil Goode] (R-Va.). MZM, Inc. was one of the chief defense contractors charged with bribing Rep. [sw: Duke Cunningham] and the owner, Mitchell Wade, has since pled guilty to the charges. In this case Berglund stands accused of ""aiding and abetting" a scheme by MZM’s owner to donate the funds in the name of others."
• The money paid to Julie Doolittle, the wife of Rep. [sw: John Doolittle] (R-Calif.), by Jack Abramoff to do fundraising for a charity event is receiving new scrutiny after the Senate Indian Affairs Committee report detailed the dates that she received the payments. Julie Doolittle "received the lion’s share of her monthly retainer fees long after a canceled charity event, which had been the principal reason cited for her $5,000-a-month retainer deal with the admitted felon’s ex-lobbying firm". Julie Doolittle received just $27,000 around the time of the charity event, but later received a seemingly unconnected $40,000 from Abramoff "three weeks after Rep. Doolittle, an avowed anti-gambling Mormon, wrote a letter of support for a tribal client of Abramoff’s seeking to reopen its casino."

0 Comments