This post was inspired by yesterday’s news related to the release of tax returns by the Clintons and vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine’s family.  While the media focused on the candidates’ effective tax rates and charitable giving, I was struck by the Clintons’ decrease in annual income between 2014 (approximately $27 million) and 2015 ($10.5 million).  Not that I feel sorry for someone who has foregone $16.5 to run for president.  The Clintons are not starving.

I’m sure Donald Trump’s tax returns (if we ever get to see them) would tell a similar story.  Both have private sources of income (e.g. book royalties, equities) and both have reported “in-kind contributions” to their campaigns based on the opportunity cost of running for office.  Nothing about this is illegal or unethical.

But, what about candidates who are not independently wealthy?  How do their families survive if they leave a salaried position or give up other income opportunities to run for office?  It raised a question I had never thought about before.  Can a candidate for public office be paid a salary from campaign funds?

According to the Federal Election Commission Campaign Guide, a candidate may receive a salary from his or her campaign committee only under certain conditions.  For example, the salary may not exceed the lesser of the candidate’s earned income from the previous year or the minimum annual salary for the office sought.  In the case of the current presidential election, the campaign could pay the candidate a salary of $400,000/year which is less than their earned income the previous year.  NOTE:  The salary must be prorated from the day the candidate declares for office until the election is over or the candidate withdraws from the race.

There is one caveat. The campaign guide states, “Incumbent federal officeholders may not receive a salary payment from campaign funds.” Therefore, Tim Kaine cannot be paid by the Clinton campaign because he still receives his salary as a U.S. Senator.  In contrast, the Trump campaign could theoretically pay Governor Mike Pence a salary equivalent to the vice president’s salary or his salary as Indiana’s chief executive, whichever is less.  The restriction applies only to “federal” officeholders.

While all the above examples refer to candidates for national office, the same rules apply to congressional candidates.  Of the 435 House seats to be contested in 2016, only 29 sitting members have opted not to seek reelection.  To be clear, 406 sitting congressmen and women, by virtue of already being federal officeholders, cannot be paid salaries by their campaigns.  Yet they are still receiving their federal salaries even when they are on the campaign trail versus conducting official business.  In other words, taxpayer dollars are covering the salaries of incumbents when they are in campaign mode.  How can this not be viewed as public financing of campaigns?  What makes it worse, it is a source of campaign funds only available to incumbents.

Here is one potential solution.  Incumbent federal officeholders, including the president and vice president, should be required to keep records of the time they spend campaigning for office.  Based on those records, a pro rata share of their federal salaries should be withheld.  If their campaigns choose to cover the foregone wages, that would be allowed.

It is time to stop pretending federal election campaigns are not publicly financed.  They already are.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP