TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………….……1 METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………..3 KEY FINDINGS…………………………………………………………………………..4 RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………………….7 THE MEMBERS………………………………………………………………………...11 TOTAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE AND PAC REIMBURSEMENTS TO SENATORS AND FAMILY MEMBERS……………………………………………..110 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s (CREW’s) latest investigation into how members of Congress use their positions to benefit themselves and their families. CREW reviewed every sitting senator for this study, a new edition of a report on the Senate CREW first published in 2008. CREW found 67 senators worthy of inclusion in this report, which analyzed data from the 2008, 2010 and 2012 election cycles, as well as the first half of the 2014 election cycle. CREW’s key findings: 20 senators (5 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 14 Republicans) paid family members through their congressional offices, campaign committees and political action committees (PACs); 30 senators (10 Democrats and 20 Republicans) have family members who lobby or are employed in government affairs; 26 senators (12 Democrats and 14 Republicans) have paid a family business, employer, or associated nonprofit; 7 senators (5 Democrats and 2 Republicans) used their campaign money to contribute to or pay a family member’s political campaign; 3 senators (1 Democrat and 2 Republicans) charged interest on personal loans they made to their own campaigns; 11 senators (6 Democrats and 5 Republicans) earmarked or directed money to a family business, employer, or associated nonprofit. Senators collectively paid relatives nearly $1.3 million in salaries and fees and paid family businesses, employers, or associated nonprofits nearly $6.9 million. Some payments easily reached six figures. Sen. Jerry Moran’s (R-KS) congressional office, campaign office, and leadership PAC’s payments to his daughter and son-in-law add up to nearly $179,000. Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) campaign committee and leadership PAC paid his wife’s employer more than $4.8 million. Sen. Mike Enzi’s (R-WY) campaign committee and leadership PAC paid his daughter-in-law’s fundraising company more than $500,000. Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) campaign committee and leadership PAC paid her son’s company more than $300,000. CREW included detailed information about reimbursements for 20 senators (6 Democrats and 14 Republicans) because their campaigns and leadership PACs reimbursed them and their relatives more than $25,000 collectively over the period included in this study, higher than usual. The vast majority of senators reported receiving at least some reimbursements from their campaign committees or PACs and such payments are typically unremarkable, as long as the expenses involved are for a legitimate campaign purpose. Nonetheless, oversight of campaign spending is limited and scrutiny from the typically ineffective Federal Election Commission (FEC) is spotty at best, suggesting circumstances that could allow for abuse. CREW found more than $2 million flowed into the hands of senators and their relatives through reimbursement payments. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who received the highest amount in reimbursements, reported more than $480,000 in reimbursements during this period for a wide range of purposes, including travel, catering, and lodging. That amount is more than double the reimbursements of the second-highest senator on the list. CREW has also included information about senators who earmarked or directed money to organizations affiliated with their family members and information about which senators are related to lobbyists and government relations professionals, situations that also have potential for abuse. In some cases, CREW found and included campaign disbursements that appear to have been made to benefit senators and their families, even though they were not made directly to them. Sen. Paul’s PAC, for instance, reported paying $24,000 for travel to a company that sells Bible-themed travel packages to Israel. The senator took a well-publicized trip to Israel in January 2013 with at least some members of his family. Sen. Paul’s office and PAC did not respond to questions about the expenditure, and CREW was unable to definitively determine whether it was a payment in connection with that trip. This report comes at a time when the public is already disgusted with Congress, and they have reason to be. Members have been getting away with outrageously clear violations of campaign finance law. For example, in June, the FEC dismissed a long-running investigation into former Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) without assessing penalties, despite concluding that Rep. Andrews’ use of campaign money to pay for a family trip to a wedding in Scotland appeared to constitute personal use of campaign funds.1 That same month, the House Ethics Committee found Rep. Don Young (R-AK) violated federal law and House rules by using campaign funds for personal use, accepting impermissible gifts, and filing inaccurate personal financial disclosure reports.2 The committee ordered him to repay the misappropriated money and issued a weak letter of reproval, but took no other action.3 Last year, CREW worked with 60 Minutes on an investigation into how members of Congress skirt the rules and find legal ways to profit from their offices.4 The 60 Minutes piece spurred calls for reform, including new rules and increased oversight. Such changes are sorely needed. Uncovering how members of Congress use their positions to benefit themselves and their families is harder than it should be. Members of Congress aren’t required to disclose their relationships with relatives when they put them on the campaign payroll, and the law doesn’t stop them from paying relatives or family businesses as long as the campaigns are receiving bona fide services and the campaign is paying “fair market value,” something that can be difficult to determine and is rarely challenged. Campaign spending, meanwhile, is often confusing or improperly reported. Senators are not required to file campaign finance reports electronically, which means it takes longer for their campaign reports to be processed and available for download and analysis. Enforcement of violations is minimal. These issues stand in the way of greater transparency and accountability, which is, after all, something many members of Congress say they want. It’s long past time for them to apply those standards to themselves. 1 Press Release, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, FEC Lets Rob Andrews Off the Hook for Campaign Finance Violations, June 3, 2014. 2 House Ethics Committee, 113th Congress, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Don Young, June 20, 2014, at 1. 3 Id., at 4. 4 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washingtons-open-secret-profitable-pacs-2/. 2 METHODOLOGY For this report, CREW reviewed the family connections as well as the campaign finances of every senator. To accomplish this, first, CREW attempted to discover the names and occupations of each senator’s relatives, especially spouses, siblings, parents, and children. CREW drew information from multiple sources, including senators’ official websites, Project Vote Smart, news articles, engagement announcements and obituaries, social networking sites, senators’ personal financial disclosure reports, campaign finance records, and CREW’s previous research. Because there are no filings in which members of Congress are required to disclose information about their families, in some cases we may have missed family members. In other cases, we found and included information about more distant relations. Next, we reviewed senators’ personal financial disclosure reports, available via the Center for Responsive Politics’ website at www.opensecrets.org and via LegiStorm’s website at www.legistorm.com, to gather information about senators’ spouses’ employment and family ties to businesses and nonprofits. We used data maintained and tracked by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) at www.fec.gov to review disbursements made by the senators’ campaign committees and political action committees (PACs) for the 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 election cycles (CREW only included disbursement data through 2013 for the 2014 election cycle, since full 2014 disbursement data was not available). In some instances, we discovered disbursements that led us to family members we had previously failed to identify. We searched campaign finance data for salaries, fees, and payments to senators’ relatives, payments to businesses and nonprofits linked to senators or their families, contributions and payments to family members’ political campaigns, and interest payments on personal loans made by senators to their campaigns. We tallied campaign and leadership PAC reimbursements to senators and their family members over the relevant election cycles and, if the total amount of such reimbursements exceeded $25,000, included information about all reimbursements to senators and their relatives in the individual member profiles. Sometimes, campaign filings did not clearly indicate whether a particular disbursement was a reimbursement for expenses or a payment for goods or services. In those cases, CREW classified the disbursement as one or the other based on the best information available. CREW classified all campaign disbursements to businesses as payments. In rare instances, when campaign disbursements were not made directly to senators or their relatives but were made to benefit