The family that campaigns together gains together: At least 64 members of Congress used campaign funds to pay family members in the 2002, 2004 and 2006 elections, according to a study by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The biggest spender, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a San Jose (Calif.) Democrat, paid nearly $350,000 to her husband's companies for event management, fundraising, accounting, regulatory compliance, rent and office services.

That's perfectly legal. But it shouldn't be.

Congress members aren't allowed to use campaign funds to pay the household bills. It makes no sense to let them use campaign funds to pay a spouse who helps pay the bills.

CREW's report, Family Affair, looks at House members with leadership positions, including lead roles on committees and subcommittees. It found members who hired relatives — including school-age and college-age children — for their campaign staffs or hired their relatives' companies.

In addition, 24 have relatives who are registered lobbyists, and 17 used campaign funds to contribute to relatives' campaigns.

Congress members shouldn't be able to use their "position as a profit center for the family," said Melanie Sloan, who heads the non-partisan group.

To avoid conflict-of-interest questions, some Congress members are firing their family members.

Last year, Lofgren stopped using the campaign services of her attorney husband. She was tired of explaining why it was legal and proper.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who paid his wife $176,800 from 2001 to '06, said she quit as his campaign treasurer in November.

It's illegal to hire a family member as a congressional staffer. However, it's OK to hire a relative as a campaign staffer if the person is qualified and isn't paid an inflated wage, the Federal Election Commission has ruled.

A bill has been introduced to change that. It would prohibit congressional candidates from paying their spouses with campaign funds. Other relatives, such as children, grandchildren and siblings, could be hired but only if their status is disclosed.

Congress should pass the bill, even if it means less income for the family.

— San Jose (Calif.)Mercury News

n n n

Former Agriculture Secretary John R. Block once said U.S. farm policy reform "should be evolutionary, not revolutionary." It certainly has been that: For 70 years, farm subsidies have been largely unchanged, often providing government benefits to wealthy landowners. It's time for a revolution.

President Bush has proposed a dramatic change in farm policy. He wants to cap subsidies to individual farmers who make more than $200,000 a year. He would cut subsidies by 60 percent — a savings of roughly $11.4 billion per year. Some of that savings would go to renewable energy initiatives.

The president's proposal is good, but Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and four members of the House have an even better idea.

Their proposal, the Food and Agriculture Risk Management for the 21st Century Act, would phase out all farm subsidies in favor of something called Risk Management Accounts.

As subsidies are phased out, government funds would be placed in RMAs, something like Individual Retirement Accounts. Farmers could contribute up to $8,000 a year to their accounts, and they could draw from the RMAs in years when factors such as bad weather lead to a drop in crop prices. They would still be able to turn to the government for help when catastrophe strikes, such as a severe and extended drought.

But traditional farm supports would end, along with them the perverse incentives to overproduce staple crops that qualify for the highest government payments.

FARM-21 also would end what always has been a troubling bias in U.S. farm policy: Five crops — corn, cotton, rice, soybeans and wheat — get 90 percent of the $19 billion a year in U.S. farm subsidies. All farmers would be eligible for RMAs.

FARM-21 would cut U.S. agricultural subsidies $20 billion over the next five years and $55 billion over the next decade. That revolutionary change would help to revive World Trade Organization negotiations that have been stalled, in part, because of international objections to U.S. farm supports.

FARM-21 faces a rough road, particularly in the House. There's a reason that farm subsidies have survived: Farm state lawmakers desperately want to preserve them. But they have to end.

U.S. farmers are the most productive in the world. They are smart, they are adaptable and they are resilient. They can stand on their own — and FARM-21 acknowledges that. It is the best agriculture reform plan to come out of Washington in a long time.