The Congressional life is good

A South Dakota senator spent $403,000 at West Virginia’s Greenbrier Sporting Club. A Missouri senator spent $117,000 at the Disney Yacht Club Resort in Florida. An Ohio congressman spent $64,000 on Broadway tickets in New York City. A Georgia congressman spent $34,000 for one event at the five-star Sea Island Resort. A Texas congressman spent $21,000 on membership dues to a Maryland country club. A Kentucky senator spent $4,000 for a limousine service in Rome.

Politicians did not cover these expenses from their own authorized campaign accounts; they likely would have violated the law if they had. Instead, they used their leadership PACs.

[...]

Little-known beyond the Beltway, these often overlooked political committees, conceived [by California Democrat Henry Waxman in 1978], are frequently described as slush funds — and nearly every member of Congress has one.

  Issue One

Sounds a lot like your president's Trump Foundation.

In the 1980s, leadership PACs came to be used by members in, or aspiring to, congressional leadership, who would make contributions from PAC funds to congressional colleagues to garner support for their efforts to win leadership positions.

[...]

These new pots of cash contributed to a system where ambitious politicians had to effectively buy their way to the top. Following the 1994 midterm elections, for example, Rep. Robert Walker (R-PA) and Rep. Tom DeLay (RTX) were vying for the majority whip position. Rep. Walker chose not to play the game and made one $1,000 contribution; Rep. DeLay formed a leadership PAC and eventually gave $2 million to his colleagues. Rep. DeLay won. The lesson was learned and leadership PACs became the de rigueur.

[...]

Yet today, a minority of leadership PAC spending goes towards contributions to other candidates or political committees: on average, only 45 percent.

[...]

[A]n overwhelming majority of representatives and senators have their own leadership PACs: 94 senators and approximately two-thirds of the House, as of 2013.

[...]

[Ever since the FEC allowed the creation of leadership PACs, the agency] has continued to assume that officeholders used leadership PAC funds to support their colleagues.

I don't know. I have a feeling somebody in the FEC has been getting a cut of these funds. After all, it sounds exactly like the type of thing that would be abused. And why should Congress members get to bribe each other for leadership roles anyway?

As the agency explained in 2002, “[t]he monies these committees receive are given to other Federal candidates to gain support when the officeholder seeks a leadership position in Congress, or are used to subsidize the officeholder’s travel when campaigning for other Federal candidates.”

And they think that sounds like a good idea?

And many leadership PACs give even less. For example, since 2013, less than 7 percent of Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) leadership PAC spending has gone toward contributions to other candidates or committees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, but in the 2018 election cycle it has already spent $11,043 at restaurants in Italy and Malta, $4,492 on a limousine service in Rome, and $1,904 at the St. George Lycabettus Hotel in Athens. Also since 2013, only 14 percent of Rep. Gregory Meeks’ (D-NY) leadership PAC spending has been used for contributions. But Meeks’ leadership PAC has already spent $9,391 at the Aria Resort in Las Vegas in the 2018 cycle — more than the $7,000 it has given to other candidates or political committees this cycle.

[...]

It is troubling enough that officeholders use their leadership PAC funds to buy their way up the leadership ladder by giving to congressional colleagues. It is even more troubling that many are using their leadership PAC funds to subsidize their own luxurious lifestyles, including high-end vacations and country club memberships.

Looks like there's a $5,000 per person/per year limit, since they don't need quite as much money for luxury trips and colleague bribes as they do to run for president (where superPACs don't have any limits at all). No wonder they can't get anything done; they're too busy holding fundraisers. Fundraisers at resorts and luxury hotels.  Fundraisers to go on fundraisers at fun places. 

Additionally, after giving the maximum legal amount to an officeholder’s authorized committee, a donor can turn around and give even more to that politician’s leadership PAC, providing another avenue for wealthy donors and special interests to evade contribution limits and funnel money into politicians’ pockets.

[...]

[L]eadership PACs collectively spent more than $160 million in the 2016 cycle, but only around $74 million of that total — less than half — went toward contributions to other federal candidates or political committees.

[...]

The Senate ethics committee claims it has no jurisdiction over leadership PACs. House ethics rules, however, state that the personal use ban applies to leadership PACs. In at least two instances, the Office of Congressional Ethics (“OCE”) has recommended an investigation into House members who appeared to use leadership PAC funds for personal use, but the ethics committee has thus far declined to take action.

No surprise there if they're all using them.

Most constituents do not know that leadership PACs exist, nor do they know that their members of Congress have them. These fundraising vehicles receive little, if any, scrutiny, and often remain under the radar. Leadership PACs epitomize the Washington swamp.

Gotta wonder what other types of PACs they've built for themselves. When you're making the laws, you get away with a lot of shit.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.