That would seem to be at least a debatable question, based on a recent article in The Hill:

Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) has reimbursed himself for more than $200,000 out of his congressional campaign this decade without saying why.

Dreier’s campaign reimbursements to himself don’t appear to provide as much detail as the Federal Election Commission (FEC) requires, and watchdog groups say he should elaborate on them.

A spokeswoman for Dreier said the campaign has every indication that it’s in compliance.

According to a review of Dreier’s FEC reports since 2000, his campaign has listed a total of about $200,000 worth of expenditures for the purpose of “candidate reimbursement.” But the forms don’t say, as the FEC appears to instruct, what Dreier had to reimburse himself for.

At issue here is the fact that Congressman Dreier has not given any details whatsoever on exactly what the supposed reimbursements were for.  The reports have only listed the expenditures–nearly all of which are large enough to trigger reporting requirement thresholds–as “candidate reimbursement.”

Are Dreier’s campaign statements in violation of the law?  I must admit that they are apparently not–yet.  The FEC decides who lives and who dies in this world, and unless the FEC asks for more information and the campaign is unable or unwilling to provide it, then apparently no law has been violated:

“If the FEC does not ask for more information, the committee may presume that the FEC is comfortable with the information provided,” Berke said.

Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said candidates have a responsibility, when dealing with reimbursing themselves, to attain a higher level of transparency.

“If there’s nothing below board here, then that should be very clear and evident from his campaign finance report, and if it’s not, then his constituents should demand that he provide more,” Levinthal said.

So basically, we’re talking about a candidate who is reimbursing himself personally for an average of over $20,000 a year this decade who is not providing the public with any disclosure whatsoever as to whether these expenditures are in any way justified.  The question from here is whether the FEC is actually going to investigate to see if these are actual legitimate reimbursements.  Anyone willing to take bets?