The Washington Post calls for politicians to stop the use of corporate jets for their travel.  "Ground the DC Jet Set," Washington Post (Jan. 15, 2006) at A16.  To this appeal it adds support for the bills now pending, Senators McCain’s and Feingold’s in particular, that would compel payment of the full charter equivalent for any such use.  The editorial does not make altogether that the bills would change the rules for both officially related and for campaign travel.  The first change would be made by amendment to the House and Senate rules; the second, by amendment of the Federal Election Campaign Act, applicable to all candidates.

      The latter change, to the candidate travel rules, would vitiate a rulemaking, now only 2 years old, in which the FEC reviewed and modified the requirements for campaign related use of corporate aircraft.  The rules established a schedule of fares, ranging from the lowest non-discounted, unrestricted first class fare to the charter rate.  The rate to be charged varies with the route traveled:  the first class airfare is required for travel between cities served by regularly scheduled first class service, while the coach fare applies to routes where service at this charge is found.  Only where the travel takes place on routes without regularly scheduled commercial service is the charter rate the required fare.  11 CFR § 100.93(c)(1)-(3).  The Commission solicited comments, considered the alternatives and promulgated these final rules in December of 2003.

      The McCain and Feingold lobbying reform bills would dispense with these rules, providing that corporations providing aircraft for candidate travel will have made an illegal corporate expenditure unless paid the full market rate—the charter rate— within seven days.   By its terms, the provision would apply to candidates, not only candidates who are also Members of Congress, and nothing more is said in the rule to suggest that it is tied to the regulation of lobbying, or the prevention of a lobbying abuse.  Unlike the provisions amending the corporate travel rules for House and Senate members, the provision for candidates does not require public disclosure of all persons—i.e. lobbyists—traveling with the candidate.  A change in the fare rules, to make the use of these aircraft more expensive and therefore less available, appears to be the goal:  this is more campaign finance than lobbying reform.

      And as lobbying reform, the question is:  restrictive to what end?  The proposal does not address the apparent evil:  the presence of the lobbyist onboard, able to bend the candidate-officeholder’s ear over the course of a flight.  Increasing the charge of the flight, the proposed measure does not condition the higher fare on the presence or absence of a lobbyist.  The campaign with money to spare can afford to charter the craft and endure the imprecations of the lobbyist.  Other campaigns, short on funds, will have to make do with commercial fares and schedules, even if the corporate aircraft could be arranged without a company lobbyist as one of the passengers.  Incumbents will have the largest share of the campaigns able to pay the freight; and yet incumbents are the candidates most appealing to companies that deploy their craft for a lobbying purpose.

      As lobbying reform, then, this proposal is thin stuff.  It is more sensibly judged as an exercise in campaign finance reform.  By this measure, there is a case to be made against it:  the FEC has considered this question, at length, and it concluded that the first and coach class fares charged for each campaign traveler are sufficient to avoid any corporate contribution or expenditure.  This is the FEC’s job, after all: to develop rules of this kind, taking into account how the law is developing and the conditions in which it is applied.  The rule now included in the McCain and Feingold bills is not better, just more restrictive, resulting in more expensive and less flexible campaign travel.

Bob Bauer