It's a time-honored political tradition -- officeholders flying around the country and farther than that even -- on the taxpayers' dime.
It's also one of my pet peeves.
You only have to think about how many officeholders there are in this country to imagine how much money we unknowingly fork over so these privileged characters can fly on chartered planes or in first class and claim, well, mainly -- cross our hearts -- we're doing official business. Not that we know for sure how much money is involved. Not that there's a record-keeping agency for travel in any one place in this country. But try to get your mind around the dollar figure.
And here's where it gets worse: The futher we get into election season, the more egregious the offense becomes and the more often your pocket gets picked.
According to Senate rules, official funds — allocated to each senator to operate their Capitol Hill office — "may only be used for official purposes," and "No official resources may be used to conduct campaign activities." That's what the Senate Ethics Committee mandates.
But try to get it enforced.
Meredith Sternmeyer, an assistant in the Government Accounting Office in Washington, told me, "Of course (taxpayer-funded personal travel) goes on. But as long as a member of Congress can prove there was official business on the trip, it’s completely legal to fit in some campaigning, too."
Some campaigning. Not much of a definition there. How much is some? A congressman theoretically can hand-deliver an official piece of paper and that's enough excuse for a three-day California stump tour. Is this practice normal? Absolutely. Is it right? Absolutely not.
I call it legal corruption. Particularly among candidates who nowadays have massive PACs and millions of dollars rolling in to pay their own way.
Sternmeyer claims all incumbents running for something, Republican and Democrat, federal, state and probably local, are offenders. Every one to some degree. That's how prevalent taxpayer-funded travel is.
This is a bipartisan practice all the way.
As a U.S. senator considering a 2008 presidential run, Democrat Hillary Clinton was able to go where other potential candidates didn't, flying taxpayer-funded charters to speak to thousands of people at events arranged by her campaign donors and political allies. The story was well covered in USA Today.
Taxpayers paid $1,400 for charter airfare for Clinton and her staff to Providence, R.I., because the speech was an "official" event. Since her campaign chipped in to cover the costs of a fundraiser in Rhode Island the same day, the trip fit within the rules that allow lawmakers -- and presidents -- to mix political and official events on their itineraries.
In fact, said USA Today, Clinton ramped up her use of taxpayer-funded charters in advance of her 2006 re-election and 2008 presidential campaign; no other 2008 contenders in the Senate did.
And President Obama, too. Remember in 2012 how the media blasted him for loading his staff aboard Air Force One and mixing politics and business? The fact is, there is little transparency in determining the cost of presidential travel. A White House spokesman declined to say how the White House and the DNC divided the cost of Obama's western trip during his re-election campaign, citing security concerns. Other administrations have refused on the same grounds.
When it comes to taxpayer takedown, few officeholders can match the shenanigans of Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz.
Two months after staging a marathon Senate speech to protest the growth of government spending, Cruz took a New York fundraising swing highlighted by a visit with Donald Trump -- and put it on the taxpayers' tab.
The trip, which cost more than $1,200, was one of several -- with a capital Several -- taxpayer-funded excursions the Texas Republican has taken to political events. You can multiply $1,200-ballpark more than a dozen times so far in a still-young campaign.
Cruz's campaign spokesman Rick Tyler came up with an explanation: "For mixed-purpose trips, the Senate encourages offices to divide expenses based on a reasonable standard. Sen. Cruz has gone above and beyond any reasonable standard for determining official vs. unofficial costs. He places the utmost priority on ensuring prudent use of taxpayer dollars."
Quick, somebody, hand me a shovel.
The trips to Florida have been fairly monumental. During the same month as the New York trip, Cruz spoke at a "Restoration Weekend" event in Palm Beach, hosted by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a conservative organization that says it "combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror."
He urged the audience to join a grassroots movement and log on to a website -- makedclisten.org -- to upload their stories about the problems caused by Obamacare. That site was operated by his PAC -- Jobs, Growth and Freedom Fund -- which maintains a "makeDClisten" Twitter account, according to USA Today.
Cruz and senior adviser Charles Roy were both reimbursed from his Senate office for travel expenses to Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale during this time period, but there is no way to determine what portion of that $2,300 expense is related to the Restoration Weekend appearance.
In February 2014, Cruz was back in Florida, again on the taxpayers' dime, to receive the Statesman of the Year award by the Sarasota Republican Party. Breitbart News described it this way: "An event originally scheduled as a small rally for potential 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz mushroomed into a major political event after nearly 2,000 people RSVP'd online." According to Breitbart, after the award ceremony, "Cruz will attend a $500 per person VIP fundraiser and, to wrap up the evening, a $5,000 per couple private donor dinner," benefiting the local party.
So guess how much Cruz was reimbursed from his office account? $1,615 in travel costs from Houston to Tampa and Palm Beach, Senate records show. USA Today has it all.
I could go on and on with Cruz's fiscal assault on American taxpayers, but I've said enough.
Ted Cruz is hardly the first politician to openly exhibit such a bloated sense of entitlement. And he's not the only presidential candidate squeezing all the juice from the orange. But that doesn't make it any more defensible.
Neither does talking out of both sides of his mouth.
It's hard to forget his 21-hour speech on the Senate floor in September 2013 to protest raising the federal debt ceiling and failing to repeal Obamacare. He said, "I think we have a deep spending problem in this country, and Congress has abdicated its responsibility and built a record debt." He made a point of saying it. In fact, it pretty much was the only point he made in all that time filibustering.
Ted Cruz thinks we have a spending problem in this country.
You know how I feel about hypocrisy.
Meanwhile, I don't know that there's an answer to limiting officeholder travel until it springs from a grassroots cry for reform. I've thought a lot about it. Right now, I can promise you, nobody but the media is watching the store. As for the Senate ethics rules currently in force? About as much teeth as a packet of gummy bears.
Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at 228-282-2423. Twitter: @NancyLBSmith.
