Do you agree with the House of Representatives that candidates for Congress shouldn't be able to pay their spouses for campaign work?

No

1 of 2

by Jenna Pavill

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

To Pay Spouses for Campaign Work or Not...

Campaign work is WORK.

Most times, those who campaign to act as a Representative for the House have mates who put their lives on hold, go on the trail with them, and if they have a regular job, they take a leave.

Why is it that only the House of Representatives be the ONLY governmental section to have this rule? What about the Senate? The White House? Governors? Mayors? Council people? It makes it seem unfair right from the start! No matter the measure, it should be across the board. It should not be targeted at ONLY this branch.

Just because the bond of marriage is between people, it does NOT discount the work or efforts put in by the mate! What? It is not like running a campaign is a guaranteed process. It's not. Countless hours go into winning.

Mates who have a job within the campaign beyond shaking hands and patting babies should get paid as the other workers do, dependant on the task they perform. If that mate spends 40 hours a week making phone calls with other employees, stuffing envelopes, ordering bumper stickers and buttons, and going door-to-door, and this person DESERVES the same pay as those around them at the same amount.

If and when the mate DOES work on the campaign, it should be at the same price that one would pay "Bob" off the street to do it. The mate should not receive a GREAT amount because they are the spouse, they should get paid to suit the task they perform. If someone off the street would get paid $5 an hour, so should the spouse. If someone hired would make $12 an hour, then so should the spouse. There can be NO favoritism either!

The mate should NOT get paid for PR activities such as attending group or community gatherings, shaking hands with the one running for office, or other "normal" spouse activities. These tasks are different. Though they could be considered work, they would be the regular things expected from him or her. There is a fine line.

There should be a system created to address such things. If the spouse participates in activities that others are paid to do, so then should the spouse. If the spouse participates in activities where no one else is getting paid, the payroll should not be allowed. If a list of activities were made to address this, it would prove helpful for all involved.

Campaigning is hard work. If that mate does the job with others who get paid, they should as well. If the mate is acting as a spouse, then it should not be considered bankable. Either way, any campaign, especially winning ones, takes lots of hard work and efforts from all involved.

The mate should NOT be overlooked just because they are the mate. It is not fair. Work equals pay. If the mate is not paid for certain activities, I see that as taking advantage of the spouse. Expecting and demanding thing as that person's work is unimportant because they ARE the spouse. That's demeaning and disgusting.

Spouses are not free labor. Spouses' work cannot be seen as something expected something "free" to tap into and drain. That mate is JUST as important as ANY other worker supporting the candidate. His or her efforts should be seen in that light. If they do the job as a manager, fulfill all the obligations of the job, they SHOULD be paid.

Why wouldn't they? Is it that some people still disregard the role of a spouse? Is it that some parts of the population cannot SEE the differences between "Job" and "Husband/Wife"?

Takin g advantage of anyone is the wrong thing. If these spouses work, beyond the call of "Husband/Wife", they DESERVE it. There is a fine line but I do not believe that the spouse should take the fall for what society sees as "...but they SHOULD do it for free! I mean, they are married to them! It's like making the bed, raising the kids, or cooking dinner! Comes with the territory!" Someone REALLY needs to chart this out and fix it.

EXCEPT this is NOT the same. If it were ANYONE else, they would be paid. They SHOULD be paid. Fair IS fair.

Learn more about this author, Jenna Pavill.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.