While some have praised Bernie Sanders’ recent visit to speak at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences conference and his meeting with the Pope, others have disparaged it as crass political posturing and a drive-by handshake. You can (and probably have) drawn your own conclusions about that.
To rebut some of the negatives, Senator Sanders and his campaign hotly contested the claims that his trip was political:
Mr. Sanders insists the visit is not a political maneuver and that he was inspired to make the trip by Pope Francis’ message of caring for others and combating economic inequality. Others, however, say Mr. Sanders is not only seeking to discuss issues, but is also driven by a desire to be seen as a global leader on issues of social justice. — NY Times
“There are some things that are above politics and this is one of those. This is an opportunity for him to speak at the Vatican on the signature works of his life,” campaign manager Jeff Weaver said.
When asked if it was a smart move to take 36 hours to travel out of the country ahead of one of the most important primary elections in the campaign cycle, Weaver took aim at Sanders' opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"Hillary Clinton has been out of the state on a number of occasions for high-dollar fundraisers," he said. "We think this is a more important reason to leave the campaign trail for the day."— CNN
"He is not going to give a political speech," [Tad] Devine said Thursday evening before CNN’s debate, "he is going to go and talk about an issue that he cares deeply about, which is a moral economy in the world, and dealing with the tremendous income and inequality not just in America but everywhere. Bernie is a tremendous admirer of Pope Francis...and he really appreciates the opportunity to speak about this on the world stage.” — ABC News
However, jumping to rise above the political fray, they may have hoist themselves on the petard of campaign finance laws.
It’s unclear exactly how much the trip cost, but ABC News stated, “The trip was organized and paid for by Sanders’ campaign.” The Daily Mail reported that “Sanders stepped off the plane on Friday in Rome for the Vatican conference with his wife, ten family members, a group of campaign staff, Secret Service detail and members of the press. The total group of what is believed to be below 50, flew in a chartered Delta 767 for their trip….” A 767 costs roughly $17,000 per hour to operate. I’ve seen estimates from $250,000 to $300,000 as the likely cost of the trip.
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 states, in relevant part:
§ 30114. Use of contributed amounts for certain purposes
(b) Prohibited use
(1) In general — A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
(2) Conversion — For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign or individual’s duties as a holder of Federal office, including—
(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
(B) a clothing purchase;
(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
(D) a country club membership;
(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
(F) a household food item;
(G) a tuition payment;
(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with an election campaign; and
(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.
Can he have it both ways? Insist it was not a political move, while taking his wife, children, and grandchildren to a conference that had nothing to do with his campaign, and still have his campaign pay for it? It sure is a lot of $27 contributions.
Should this just be disregarded because pretty much everything a nominee does at this part of the process is “part of the campaign?” Is it allowed because he’s a Senator (does this come under his “individual’s duties as a holder of Federal office…”)?
It’s food for thought, at least.
