Representative Marilyn Musgrave lends questionable support for family members

Steve Musgrave likes his bling.

28 Jun 2007 // According to personal financial disclosure forms publicly released on June 15, the husband of Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave owns tens of thousands of dollars in precious metals or coins, or a combination of the two. And with a little help from his wife, Mr. Musgrave may soon get a break on his collectable booty.

A Chronicle analysis of records and congressional documents shows that Representative Musgrave is pushing to lower taxes on precious metals and coins, commodities in which her husband has investments worth between $50,001 and $100,000. The exact value of Steve Musgrave’s investments is unknown, because lawmakers are required to disclose their assets only in broad ranges.

Currently, profits on gold, silver or other precious metal bullion investments are taxed at a rate of 28 percent, and the tax code treats them the same as collectibles like artwork, antiques, stamps or numismatic coins.

Democratic Congresswoman Shelley Berkley of Nevada is gathering support to introduce a bill that would lower their tax rate to 15 percent. A version of the measure already exists in the U.S. Senate, thanks to five Western senators. And earlier this month, Musgrave endorsed this so-called Fair Treatment for Precious Metals Investors Act.
If the bill passes, “this might save [the Musgraves] a couple thousand bucks,” says Donald Samelson, an associate professor of accounting at Colorado State University. “A few thousand bucks is probably chicken feed to them.”

But Mr. Musgrave isn’t the only family member getting help from the elected lady of the household.

A recent report by the nonpartisan ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) slams the congresswoman for paying her daughter Amy more than $41,000 for campaign work during the past two elections.

During the 2004 election, Musgrave’s campaign committee doled out $24,730 to Amy Musgrave, a former secretary for former Republican state senator John Andrews of Centennial. During the 2006 cycle, she received additional payments totaling $16,623.

While current rules bar members of Congress from having a family member on their congressional payroll, there is no such requirement for campaign committees. The Federal Elections Commission allows family members to work for the campaigns of relatives as long as they are qualified and provide bona fide services at no higher than the market value.

CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan says the custom doesn’t seem to differ much as a policy matter, and she believes it should be treated similarly under the law. To get a sense of how pervasive the practice might be, CREW examined the ranking members of the House of Representatives, as well as those who have served as chairs of committees or subcommittees since 2002. They discovered that 64 of those surveyed had paid family members through official campaigns or political action committees, although CREW qualifies that the investigation was not exhaustive. Republicans, including Musgrave, account for roughly 60 percent of the perpetrators.

Musgrave has not returned calls for comment, but neither of her financial family values is against the law. The conflict of interest statutes for Congress are written in such a way that legislation must benefit only the lawmaker to be an official violation. And that irks CREW, whose members say both practices give the impression that Musgrave is using her legislative position for personal gain.

“Members should avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest,” Sloan says. “They shouldn’t be pushing bills that financially benefit themselves or their family members, just like they shouldn’t be paying their family members.”