Of course Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) doesn't like the ban on paying spouses from campaign funds.  He benefits from the practice.  Campaign contributions pay his wife, which means campaign funds actually enrich his family directly.  That's the problem, although Wamp doesn't seem to see it: 

For the past four years, Kim Wamp has worked on the campaign of her husband, Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., helping with fundraising and event planning.

But under a bipartisan bill the House passed last month, she and all other candidate spouses no longer would be allowed on campaign payrolls. Rep. Wamp said that, should the Senate pass similar legislation and President George Bush sign it into law, he will abide by it, but not without protest.

"She's the person I trust the most," he said of his wife. "There have been some abuses (under current law), and that needs to be weeded out, but this is the most transparent way because it's public record. It's listed how much she makes. We have kept that compensation low."

On Monday, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would ban the use of campaign funds to pay spouses.  CREW documented this abusive practice in our report, Family Affair.  Yesterday, The Politico reports that some members of Congress who have utilized this practice are none too happy:

House members are complaining that their spouses could lose their jobs, their family incomes could drop and, perhaps, the entire pattern of their family lives could change if an ethics reform bill just passed by the House becomes law.

The bill would bar campaigns from employing a lawmaker's spouse. Its backers argue that employing a spouse creates an implicit conflict of interest, tempting lawmakers to overpay and tipping off contributors that some of their largesse will go directly to the lawmaker's family.

But what seems an obvious conflict to some is a way of life to others.

Rhonda Rohrabacher has 3-year-old triplets and a work-at-home job as campaign manager to her husband, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.).

She made $57,000 in the 2006 election cycle, according to a recent report by the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Under the proposed ban, Rhonda Rohrabacher would be out of a job.

"It's gonna hurt me," Rep. Rohrabacher said. "My family would be deprived of that income. I think it's baloney. I think it's just a way of not having to look at issues by making it a personal matter."

Unlike other ethics reforms, which prohibit lobbyists from buying meals for lawmakers or curtail congressional travel, the spouse proposal strikes an intimate blow to a handful of legislators.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) paid his wife, Patricia, $110,000 in the last election cycle to do fundraising and prepare campaign finance reports, according to CREW.

He found the new reform proposal so alarming that he sought out one of the bill's original sponsors, Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), to personally voice his opposition.

"It would definitely cause me some problems, probably financial problems," McKeon said. "And if I had to bring in someone else to do the same work, I wouldn't have that same kind of trust."

Cafferty talks up CREW's report, Family Affair:

CREW is getting very good coverage in the articles about passage of the legislation banning payment to spouses from campaign funds.  The Los Angeles Times cites the findings of our report, Family Affair, in its piece today: 

Under a bill the House approved Monday, members of Congress would no longer be able to put their spouses on their campaign payrolls, a practice criticized as a way for lawmakers to profit from political donations.

The action comes after a number of lawmakers, including Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Roseville), have come under scrutiny for paying their spouses from campaign funds.

Doolittle's wife took 15% of the campaign contributions she raised for her husband, once earning $90,000 from a single event.

But dozens of other lawmakers from both parties have paid their spouses, children or other relatives out of campaign funds.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, found that at least 64 House members paid relatives from their campaign funds or PACs during the last three election cycles.

The measure, approved on a voice vote, comes as a broader overhaul of lobbying rules has stalled. But with Congress suffering from dismal job-approval ratings, Democratic leaders were anxious to showcase progress on ethics reform, an issue that was a central theme in their successful campaign last year to win the majority.

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that prevents payment to spouses from campaign funds.  The Washington Post intimates that CREW's study, Family Affair, provided the impetus for the House action:

The measure, passed on a voice vote, was sponsored by Reps. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and Michael N. Castle (R-Del.). It would not bar other family members from working on a lawmaker's campaign but would require disclosure.

The vote follows a study released last month by the liberal-leaning watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that found that nearly 100 chairmen and ranking minority members of House committees used their roles to benefit their families, including employing spouses and other kin for campaign or consulting work.

Schiff originally conceived of the measure as an amendment to an ethics bill passed in May, then decided to offer it separately. "Specifically I was concerned about cases where a spouse was being paid on a commission basis," he said, describing an arrangement made and later discontinued by Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.), who paid his wife, Julie, a portion of the donations she brought in.

By making such agreements, Schiff said: "You're essentially telling a donor, 'Part of what you give to my campaign, you give to me.' That's inherently a conflict."

Schiff said he is "reaching out" to find sponsors for a Senate version of the bill.

Just received notice that H.R. 2630, the "Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act" will receive a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives tonight. The bill is currently on the suspension calender which, according to the House Whip's office means "Bills considered on the Suspension calendar are debatable for 40 minutes; may not be amended; and require a two-thirds vote for passage. If a recorded vote is requested, it will be postponed."

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) prohibits payments to a candidate's spouse from campaign committee funds -- or from a Leadership Political Action Committee (PAC). It also requires the reporting of any payments to family members from those funds.

CREW's report, Family Affair,  released last month, was the first-ever analysis of the misuse of power by the chairmen and ranking members of all House of Representative committees and subcommittees, as well as top leadership positions, to financially benefit their family members.  Family Affair, named 96 members from 33 states: 41 Democrats and 55 Republicans, who used campaign funds to pay family members.  Under the Schiff-Castle bill, were it to become law (and it should become law) that practice will end for spouses.

Georgia Congressman David Scott hired family members to do work on his campaigns. So did Rep. John Doolittle and many other members of Congress. It's legal, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookman says it's not a good idea:

Since 2002, U.S. Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) has paid more than $500,000 in campaign money to members of his family and to his family-owned advertising company. The money was paid for work performed on his campaign.

The practice isn't illegal — an Associated Press survey two years ago found that roughly 50 members of the U.S. House had paid spouses or children to work on their campaigns. But it also isn't very wise.

Scott rejects any suggestion of impropriety. His company and family members — his wife, two daughters and a son-in-law — performed legitimate campaign work and more than earned their compensation, according to the congressman.

That may be true. The problem is that under the circumstances, it's difficult for outsiders to confirm that statement. And unfortunately, there's a long and sordid history of unethical politicians using their campaign treasuries as a personal cashbox.

In California, for example, U.S. Rep. John Doolittle, a Republican, paid his wife a commission of 15 percent of all donations to his campaign fund and political action committee.

To outsiders, that looked suspiciously like a scheme to divert political donations into personal income, but Doolittle's explanation sounds a lot like that offered by Scott. His wife helped him raise money, and "the family is the one that has the most direct vested interest of all in being honest about things and ensuring your success."