Senator gets state per diem for travel, then reimburses himself from his campaign fund for other costs. Should that be allowed?
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a body that considers many ethics-reform proposals, is under scrutiny after a weekend article in the Albuquerque Journal called into question his use of campaign funds.
Essentially, Cisco McSorley, D-Albuquerque, is taking the per diem and other reimbursements he is entitled to from the state for travel as a lawmaker, then also reimbursing himself for additional travel expenses out of his campaign fund.
For example, McSorley was reimbursed $2,803 by the state in 2006 for travel expenses, a registration fee and $144 per day in per diem related to a business trip to South Carolina, yet he also reimbursed himself $3,682 from his campaign account for “unreimbursed expenses,” the newspaper reported. McSorley told the Journal that was for lodging and meals, and he doesn’t consider per diem to be an allowance for such expenses.
“It wasn’t the first or last time McSorley received per diem from the state to attend a conference or legislative committee meeting, then used campaign funds to pay himself for claimed unreimbursed expenses,” the article states. “Since May 2006, he has paid himself more than $15,500 for expenses for conferences and meetings he claimed were unreimbursed, his campaign finance reports show.”
McSorley, according to the Journal, “said he has done nothing wrong and that he doesn’t consider the per diem he receives from the state to be an allowance for lodging, meals and incidental expenses.
“That is supposed to be trying to make up for what I lost at home” while away from work, the Journal quoted McSorley as saying.
Really? That $145 a day lawmakers receive when the Legislature is in session and while on official business is supposed to make up for their inability to work, not reimburse them for lodging, meals and incidental expenses? The federal government disagrees.
The U.S. General Services Administration defines per diem on its Web site as “the allowance for lodging (excluding taxes), meals and incidental expenses.” Included in incidental expenses are “Fees and tips given to porters, baggage carriers, bellhops, hotel maids, stewards or stewardesses and others on ships, and hotel servants in foreign countries… Transportation between places of lodging or business and places where meals are taken, if suitable meals cannot be obtained at the temporary duty site,” and “Mailing cost associated with filing travel vouchers and payment of Government charge card billings.”
But this isn’t the federal government. So what about state law? The New Mexico Constitution states that lawmakers shall receive per diem as “reimbursement for out-of-state travel.” The rate is based on the maximum allowed by the IRS that’s exempt from taxation.
Income from work, the Journal points out, is obviously taxable.
There’s more. Check out the article by clicking here.
The bottom line: McSorley has embraced what is — at best — an ethical gray area. And of course, though the Journal article didn’t delve into this, McSorley isn’t the only lawmaker doing this.