THE HILL
 

War chests give staffers extra money

By Reid Wilson - 11/03/09 06:00 AM ET

Members of Congress are paying thousands of dollars a year from their campaign accounts to staffers who also have jobs in their official offices.


At least 17 members of Congress have paid staff in their official office to do part-time campaign work on the side so far this year, according to a review of documents filed with the Federal Election Commission and the clerk of the House.

Nine chiefs of staff have had their wages supplemented by their bosses for part-time work this year, including several who already make nearly as much as they can under House rules. The Speaker’s Pay Order sets the top salary for a staffer at $168,411 per year.

With salaries on Capitol Hill capped by rules set by each Speaker, supplementing an employee’s wages with campaign cash can entice someone to stay, even if he or she could make more money by moving off Capitol Hill to a lobbying practice or a think tank.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), for one, “believes that congressional staff are underpaid given their high level of skills and their extremely hard work, so he doesn’t ask them to do campaign work without compensation,” spokesman Harry Gural said.

Frank has paid three staffers for work done for the campaign this year. Former Chief of Staff Peter Kovar, now at the Department of Housing and Urban Development; scheduler Maria Giesta; and legislative director Bruno Freitas are all on Frank’s payroll.

Frank makes the payments “because he doesn’t want to use public money for political purposes,” Gural said.

The practice is not illegal, but it has raised eyebrows among ethics watchdogs that warn the arrangements can lead to blurred lines of responsibility and, in some cases, staffers doing campaign work on the taxpayers’ dime.

“Any time you have a staffer that’s on both payrolls, they deserve greater scrutiny, because they are admitting they have two masters,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center. “It shows the loyalties of any particular staffers are not simply to the public that they’re serving, but to the ongoing political viability of their boss.”

McGehee agrees that paying staffers out of campaign accounts is a way to keep talented aides.

“Given the pay scales in Washington, it’s a realistic means of trying to keep good staff on the Hill,” she said.

But, she added, while laws against using public resources to conduct campaigns are strong, the ability to enforce those measures is weak. Only a few staffers are ever caught doing campaign work on congressional equipment, and avoiding crossing the line can be as simple as stepping beyond metal detectors and whipping out a cell phone.

“There’s really no meaningful enforcement mechanism to police whether or not campaign activity is being done on the public fund,” McGehee said. “The reality is nobody’s paying that close attention. It’s one of the advantages for incumbents.”

Staffers who work for campaigns must keep clear records of how their time is spent, according to guidance from the ethics committee, and members of Congress cannot compel their staff to assist their campaigns.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) pays Chief of Staff Greg Hill approximately $168,000 a year for his work in the congressional office. Hill also makes just over $1,300 a month — or more than $15,000 a year — from McCaul’s campaign committee.

In a statement, McCaul said Hill is compensated for work he does for the three-term Republican’s campaign.
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Reps. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) and Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) pay their chiefs of staff about $164,000 a year, reports show.

Kristi Way, Cantor’s chief of staff, has been paid almost $11,000 from Cantor’s campaign through the first nine months of the year. Vickie Walling, Tanner’s top aide, has made $3,600 so far, while Adam Brand in Kennedy’s office has taken home $5,500 from the campaign since January.
Walling, according to Tanner spokesman Randy Ford, “is compensated for part of the political work she does outside her congressional office responsibilities.” Spokesmen for Cantor and Kennedy did not return calls or e-mails seeking comment.

Other lower-ranking staffers have seen their incomes supplemented by campaign accounts. Reps. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) keep their communications directors on campaign payroll. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) has a scheduler on salary.

Cari Johns, a former scheduler for Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), left Blackburn’s Washington office and returned to Tennessee, where she will work on the four-term Republican’s campaign.

Funds have also gone to settle old campaign debts. Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) paid communications director Jared Smith $10,000 for work Smith did during the campaign last year. Smith is not paid a regular salary by the campaign.

Reps. Barton, Inglis, Tanner and John Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) also employ family members to do campaign work for them, as first reported by The Hill last month.

Eric Messinger and Steve Stoddard contributed to this report.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/66003-war-chests-give-staffers-extra-money

Comments (6)

That is truely #@%*## unreal that these snot nosed kids make that kind of money,tell me is it true that a senator works one term and gets his salery of ? plus full medical free for life. Please answer this question for me and the rest of the country who pay for their medical bennifets and work at least 25 years to get a pension of maybe 40-50 thousand on the high end.BY Roger Hickok on 11/03/2009 at 07:42
Who in their Right mind would want Marsha "Queen of Pork" Blackburn to help them? Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR: Omnibus Appropriations, Special Education, Global AIDS Initiative, Job Training, Unemployment Benefits, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Agriculture Appropriations, U.S.-Singapore Trade, U.S.-Chile Trade, Supplemental Spending for Iraq Afghanistan, Prescription Drug Benefit, Child Nutrition Programs, Surface Transportation, Job Training and Worker Services, Agriculture Appropriations, Foreign Aid, Vocational/Technical Training, Supplemental Appropriations, UN BY Mickey on 11/03/2009 at 08:01
You asked for an answer about what retirement and medical benefits members of Congress are eligible for. The answers are not hard to find by an search on the web that only takes a few minutes. The retirement plan is described “Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress Updated October 28, 2008” at :http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30631_20081028.pdf Without going into the details, this is a quote from the webpage that follows the quote:“Accordin g to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.”http://lornakismet.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/salaries-and-benefits-of-us-congress-members/Congress has the same retiree medical benefits as federal employees and in retirement pay the same premiums as active workers:http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalhmo200 9.pdfBY Helen Northmore on 11/03/2009 at 10:16
Roger Hickok, you are completely uninformed. I graduated Cum Laude, and had a study partner all through college who graduated within a few points of me in GPA. I went to Capitol Hill and was paid around 30K a year AFTER a year of unpaid internship, she went to a Boston financial firm and was paid 40K as an intern, with a promotion to over 150K after a year. Do the math.This comment is really stupid;“Any time you have a staffer that’s on both payrolls… It shows the loyalties of any particular staffers are not simply to the public that they’re serving, but to the ongoing political viability of their boss.”Meredith McGehee has obviously never worked on The Hill. Think about this for a second please. EVERY staffer there knows that if their boss is not re elected, they are instantly out of a job. Hill staffers are NOT Federal bureaucrats with job security, they serve at the pleasure of the elected official and the voters of their district. Do you think any staffer really does not care about the political viability of their boss? That is like saying an employee in a private firm doesn't really care about whether their company goes bankrupt! What an idiotic thing to say!BY Jubal on 11/03/2009 at 14:24
The comment by Meredith McGehee is ridiculous. Every Congressional staffer has split loyalties regardless of whether or not they work on their boss' campaign. All Hill staffers' jobs are tied to their boss' electoral success.Roger - The people who work on Capitol Hill are not "kids". The only ones who could possibly be classified as such are college interns and pages. If you think college interns are making a lot of money on the Hill, you need to educate yourself before making comments on this subject. You are right, however, that some people who work on the Hill are snotty. As are some people who comment here. I'll try not to hold it against you though.That being said, I don't think anyone working on the Hill should make more than $100k, including the Members of Congress.BY Eric on 11/03/2009 at 15:06
Ok, you people need to calm the frick down!When I first read the headline i thought I was gonna be outraged, but instead was relieved at what I read., if true, it shows that staffers, who work pretty freakin hard on a very small dime earn a fair share for keeping their jobs in their off time. The money is NOT from taxpayers and only from campaign money which is given with the belief that the money will likely be used for salaries of campaign staff.You people have such obsurd preconcieved notions of what a members office makes. you watch too much TV. I was a former congressional staffer for 4 years and considering the crap i had to put up with (namely from idiots like you) I was grossly underpayed. The average hill staffer makes less that $35k a year. Are you telling me that 35k a year is enough to live in an expensive city? get a life and think before you bashBY steve on 11/03/2009 at 15:20

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.