The Travel Game

The Mountain Goat Report continues the Bill Sali insinuation game with a focus on Congressman Sali’s one privately-financed trip:

A USA Today article reprinted at FederalTimes.com reports on the number of free trips being taken by members of Congress despite new House travel restrictions. One eye catching mention was this:

The Club for Growth, which supports tax cuts and smaller government, spent $32,242 to bring 10 GOP lawmakers to its April convention at the Ritz-Carlton Palm Beach in Florida that included a four-hour cruise on a 170-foot yacht, reports show.

Interesting because we know that Club for Growth bankrolled Idaho Congressman Bill Sali’s 2006 primary and general election campaigns. Did Club for Growth pay for Bill Sali to attend this April convention?

According to OpenSecrets, Club for Growth flew Sali from D.C. to West Palm Beach to attend a “Winter Conference where Congressman Sali was asked to speak about his work on the Natural Resources Committee and how to work with Democratic Party” on March 29th through April 1st at a cost of $3,491.

This is interesting for many reasons. The first being that MGR has missed the point of the USA Today story which stated:

Despite new House travel restrictions, lawmakers accepted free trips worth nearly $1.9 million during the first eight months of this year — more than in all of 2006, records show.

The amount of travel lawmakers take at the expense of private groups typically declines in an election year, but last year it dramatically fell. Stung by scandals, lawmakers worried about re-election cut in half the amount of privately funded travel they took to $1.7 million, according to CQ MoneyLine, a nonpartisan group that tracks congressional travel.

So when the Democrats took power, the amount of paid travel increased. If taking outside travel makes corruption, then are not the Democrats corrupt for their increased travel? What I also found fascinating was the decision of USA Today to focus on the Club for Growth Trip, rather than a conference on “No Child Left Behind” hosted by the Aspen Institute in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Aspen Institute paid between $6,081 and $8, 749 per head for members to attend the conference to have several Congressmen attend. Yet, that escapes the notice of USA Today, while the Club for Growth, paying half as much, is featured.

Ultimately, some trips are suspect. When you have industry groups flying Congressmen into exotic locales and subsequently getting earmarks, that’s a sign something is wrong. But is everyone who flies a member of Congress somewhere trying to buy them? No, I particularly lack suspicion of purely ideological groups like the conservative Heritage Foundation, the Liberal Brookings Institutes, and yes, the Club for Growth.

When the Club for Growth fly members of Congress to a conference, it’s because these people are committed to the cause. For the Club for Growth, the cause is less spending and less government, with a laser-beam focus on pork. That’s where Bill Sali got his 94% rating. What type of projects did the Club oppose (and Bill Sali agree with them on)? Only:

• A $2 million no bid contract to Sherwin Williams to develop a “paint shield” that the Pentagon didn’t ask for and in which the American people have no stake.

• $2 million for a public service center named in honor of current New York Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY)

• $150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium.

• $878,046 for Catfish Pathogen Genomic Project in Auburn, Alabama.

Insuring the public money is spent wisely is not a bad thing. Nor did Club for Growth need to donate money to Sali for him to reach that conclusion. Congressman Sali has been very firmly in support of that before Club for Growth came along, as his legislative record shows. The Club’s support is based on Congressman Sali’s actual values.

What’s wrong with Sali taking a trip financed by the Club for Growth? Are all Congressional trips wrong? If so, what about the Democrats that take them? Will a Democratic Congressman promise no trips for him and his staff that are paid for by a private party? Are all Democratic Congressmen corrupt who’ve taken these junkets?

What’s wrong with the Club for Growth itself? Is it wrong for out-of-state people to contribute to campaigns? If so, what about the $72, 103 Larry Grant raised from out of state via the liberal Act Blue in mostly non-itemized contributions, or $95,000 from Unions +$10,000s from out-of-state liberal leadership PACs? That out of state influence evidently is okay, as no liberal in Idaho has done anything other than duck or dodge when Larry Grant’s contributions are mentioned.

Of course, they’ll attack the club with ad hominem attacks, not incisively say, “This is what’s wrong with their position.” Because if they explain what their problem is with the positions and philosophy of the Club for Growth, they will show how far out of Idaho’s mainstream they are, because the positions of the Club for Growth are more representative of Idaho than the Idaho Democratic Party is.

There’s no higher principle here. What this is about is political gamesmanship.