The Cedar Rapids Gazette ran a story over the weekend about Christie Vilsack’s Congressional campaign as a potential “ethics quandary” for her husband, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. While possible conflicts of interest exist in this situation, some of the points raised in the article seem unwarranted.  

Ana Radelat’s story for the Gazette was headlined “Wife’s candidacy poses ethics quandary for ag secretary.” Its first point is straightforward: Tom Vilsack can’t campaign for his wife or comment publicly on her Congressional race.

The [USDA] ethics office advised the secretary on a federal law that places restrictions on political conduct of federal employees. It bans him from campaigning for her or commenting on her race.

When his wife formally announced her candidacy in Ames last month, Vilsack was at her side. But ethics rules prevented him from identifying himself as the secretary of agriculture.

A USDA official said the secretary has drawn “a very clear, very bright white line between politics and government.”

Drawing that necessary line will deprive Christie Vilsack of a helpful surrogate in the IA-04 race. It’s already an uphill battle to take on a five-term GOP incumbent in a district with 40,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. In an ideal scenario, her husband would have helped her campaign in this huge district. Tom Vilsack has nearly universal name-recognition, and in his 2002 re-election as governor, he (barely) carried the 39 counties in the new fourth district.

Radelat then brings up what strikes me as a non-issue:

Of greater importance to Iowans is that Vilsack may now have to recuse himself from certain issues that affect Iowa. That means an asset for the state – that the secretary of agriculture had close ties and deep knowledge of Iowa and its needs – has been lost.

James McCormick, chairman of the political science department at Iowa State University, said “ethics has to supersede any harm that might come to Iowa.”

I don’t see a need for Secretary Vilsack to recuse himself from all USDA programs relating to Iowa. I doubt that would even be possible, given the importance of Iowa to the U.S. agricultural sector. Of course he can’t provide special help to the counties where his wife is running for Congress, but USDA assistance in those counties as part of a broader project doesn’t pose any conflict of interest. Earlier this summer, Vilsack visited rural areas affected by Missouri River flooding. Lower-ranking USDA officials have promised help for Iowa and Nebraska farmers through various Farm Service Agency and Risk Management Agency programs. Some of the hard-hit areas are in the new IA-04, but no one could credibly claim that Vilsack is intervening to help his wife’s candidacy. The USDA did a lot for farmers in eastern Iowa after flooding in 2008 and 2010. This is no different.

The Gazette article then ventures onto even shakier ground:

“It’s a very delicate situation for him,” Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford said of Vilsack. “The difficulty is, on the one hand you cannot and do not want to do something that can be seen as favoring the state in a way that helps Christie. But on the other hand you don’t want to disadvantage the state.”

Goldford also says “someone must ask ‘should she have done this?’ in running for office in Iowa because she put her husband in a difficult position.”

Goldford is way off-base here. The Vilsacks wouldn’t be the first couple to have one spouse in Congress while the other holds a senior federal government post. Radelat mentions two of the most famous “power couples.” When Liddy Dole was secretary of labor or secretary of transportation, I don’t recall anyone suggesting that she recuse herself from all Kansas-related issues because of her husband Bob Dole’s work as senator from Kansas. The same goes for Elaine Chao, who was George W. Bush’s labor secretary while her husband, Mitch McConnell, was Senate majority leader.

Christie Vilsack spent a large part of her adult life promoting her husband’s political career. She traveled the state extensively during his campaigns for governor and his eight years in office. She could be in her mid-60s by the time her husband leaves the USDA. No one should begrudge her choice to run for Congress now.

In the context of Vilsack’s strong fundraising so far, Radelat writes,

Some of Christie Vilsack’s money came from out-of state contributors who may have interests before the USDA, such as Gary Hirshberg, CEO of New Hampshire yogurt company Stonyfield Farms and Walter Robb, the CEO of Whole Foods who lives in California.

“We’re proud of the strong support we’ve received from people from all walks of life who believe Christie can help bring new jobs and opportunity to Iowa,” said Vilsack campaign spokesman Patrick Brown. “We do not accept contributions from agricultural PACs and registered lobbyists working at companies with business before the USDA.”

That distinction makes little sense to me. Vilsack is bound to receive a lot of donations from outside Iowa, because Steve King is one of the most notorious Republicans in Congress. Hirshberg donates to many Democratic candidates, and I think it’s a stretch to suggest that he supported Vilsack to get some advantage for his company with the USDA.

Anyway, our campaign finance system allows legalized bribery to flourish all the time. Candidates receive tons of money from individuals and PACs who have financial interests tied up in legislation Congress will consider. Vilsack’s not refusing money from other PACs that may be seeking influence, so why single out agricultural PACs?

During the last quarter, Vilsack’s Congressional campaign received $5,000, the maximum allowed contribution, from Jerry Crawford as well as from his wife Linda Crawford. In 2009, Jerry Crawford registered as a federal lobbyist for Monsanto. As of late 2010, Crawford’s law firm was still doing work for Monsanto, which explains why one of the Iowa Democratic Party’s largest donors endorsed Republican Bill Northey for Iowa secretary of agriculture.

I’m not saying Jerry Crawford donated to Christie Vilsack to gain advantage for Monsanto. The Crawfords and the Vilsacks go way back. I just don’t see the point of saying we’re not taking money from “registered lobbyists working at companies with business before the USDA” if you’re accepting donations from Jerry Crawford.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.