"I know that it's completely inappropriate to be paying for government and paying for campaigning," Leavitt said. "And I know his staffers speak for him on the campaign stump.

"They have a hand in each till."

Cannon's chief of staff, Joe Hunter, defended the practice, saying he is following the advice of the House Ethics Committee that compensating staffers for campaign work is appropriate.

"We absolutely are doing above and beyond the norm in being transparent and ethical in how we do it," he said. "The way Chris insists we do it is if a person on the congressional staff moves over to the campaign to do work or to a lesser extent is involved significantly in the campaign, the campaign compensates them for that work. We do that in order to make absolutely certain there is no crossing of the wall between the two functions and operations."

Chaffetz criticized Hunter for fielding questions about the issue.

"The mere fact you're talking to the chief of staff about the campaign is in itself wrong," Chaffetz said. The chief of staff shouldn't be talking about the campaign at all."

The criticism has Cannon considering some changes, Hunter said. "The one thing that we are doing is keeping closer track of time (staffers spend on the campaign). I don't think we were failing in that regard. We have always revisited it every month, and I'm clear about it."

Another criticism was the amount of money Hunter, Rathbun and others received from the campaign to reimburse them for phone bills. The House Ethics Committee recommends that campaigns reimburse for travel expenses only.

"We're looking at that right now," Hunter said. "We may do that differently. I'm not saying we were doing it wrong. Our first priority is transparency. This story wouldn't even be possible if we weren't transparent. Everything we do is public record."

Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, said paying congressional staffers for their campaign work improves transparency.

"In general it's pretty common that senators and representatives have staff who volunteer their time or get paid to work essentially a second job helping with campaigns," Jowers said. "It's especially true in the House where in a two-year election cycle, you're always working on the next campaign. Every representative does it differently, it seems. Some have a lot of volunteer hours and that's very hard for the public and press to see what is going on. Many pay a few of their staff so they can consistently rely on them to get what they need done."

For Jowers, the bigger issue is making sure staffers put in "a legitimate day's work for a legitimate day's pay.

"For example, it would be very difficult for a chief of staff to also work full-time for the campaign," Jowers said. "The numbers in the Cannon office do not make me concerned. The concern is when you see one amount really disproportionate to what someone should be making, because then you wonder if they're compensating for more than the purported reason, giving an illegal bonus."

Battling an established incumbent who can use his staffers to work on his campaign, albeit on their own time or at the campaign's expense, is a clear frustration for challengers, Jowers said.

"The advantages of incumbency are immense," he added. "That's why we have a plus-95 percent re-election rate in the House. As a challenger, every one of those advantages makes you want to pull your hair out. It's easier to raise money if you're the incumbent, and you have other ways to get in front of people. The list goes on and on."

---

E-mail: twalch@desnews.com