Who should pay?

When the news broke a couple of days ago that Sen. Larry Craig was using campaign donations to pay attorney fees to help him through the toilet stall scandal, I was a bit miffed by the conclusion in the report that this a legal way to use campaign contributions. What the law really says is that it's OK to use campaign funds in defense of problems with the law directly related to the office.

Since Larry Craig wants to continue his work as a U.S. Senator, he assures the ethics committee that his trouble with the law has nothing to do with his job as senator. A statement by one of his attorneys agrees that the arrest is "wholly unrelated to the performance of official duties."

This morning's Statesman presents another side of the story. If the foolishness had nothing to do with his work, then he can handle it on his own and go on with his work in the U.S. Senate to the best of his ability above the roar of heckling and rude comments. Federal law, however, explicitly prohibits the use of campaign funds for expenses that are not related to the duties of an office holder or candidate.

So here he is again, stuck between a rock and a hard place.

To the public he says, "This has nothing to do with my work in the Senate, which I intend to continue to the end of my term (December 31, 2008)." To the ethics committee he says, "This is linked to my work in the Senate to the extent that it's OK for me to use campaign money to defend myself in this case."

Not quite. As specific as federal law may be, the main authority in this case, the Federal Election Commission, has been lenient in the past in allowing the use of campaign funds for legal fees without any qualification, so there may not be enough precedents on record to rule out a loophole to allow this in Larry Craig's case. They decide on a case-by-case basis.

So far Larry has spent about $60,000 worth of campaign funds for attorney fees to help him fight charges in the scandal.