Monday, May 05, 2008
Is Walberg Paying Campaign Staff?
As I mentioned in my previous post, someone sent me a MIRS article a while back with two interesting items in it. Here's the second one.
In the article, one might read:
One interesting line item was campaign staff payroll. Peters led the pack by shelling out $55,506 in employee compensation and taxes. Knollenberg spent $35,640 for campaign staff payroll.(Emphasis added.)
As I noted in the FEC disclosure posts, Walberg spent more last quarter than Schauer-- about $33,000 more. Thus far, Schauer hasn't spent a whole lot on his campaign in general, and while his staff salary amount seems a little low, there is some logic to it. Walberg spent $100,000 in a single quarter, but absolutely none of it was on staff? And yet, as the article notes, someone has been working on the campaign, mostly Walberg congressional staffers.
From what I can tell, there are two ways this works. Either A.) Walberg is making his staff work extra for the campaign and he's not paying them, or B.) Walberg is making his staff work for the campaign during business hours and is paying them with government funds.
Neither of those sound good to me.
The excuse made by Walberg's spokesperson, "All volunteering by staff members is done on their own time," seems a little unrealistic to me. An entire office being willing to do extra work for absolutely no pay, especially when congressional staff salaries aren't that great to begin with, would require an incredible amount of loyalty and devotion to Congressman Walberg. I'm just a little skeptical. Generally, when a campaign asks its staff to work without pay, it's a bad sign.
Some of you might remember a story that I wrote about in January, in which I was told that Walberg's congressional staff was asked to go the entire campaign season without taking any vacation time. From that post:
When asked whether that meant Walberg's staff would be required to help on the campaign, apparently they were told that they couldn't be required, but, if anyone wanted a job next year, they had to "do their part."(Emphasis added.)
Note that the entire story was brought to me by just one source, and in the comments, it was challenged by an anonymous commenter (and I updated the post to reflect that). I can't comment on whether or not that story was actually true, because I don't usually hear much from Walberg's staffers, disgruntled or not.
At the same time, this thing about all volunteering by staff members being done on their own time sounds eerily reminiscent of everyone having to "do their part" and make these kinds of sacrifices.
Then again, I could be wrong. Walberg's staff could be just that devoted. Maybe I'm just cynical.
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008