By Zachary Gorchow
Executive Editor and Publisher
Posted: October 31, 2017 3:18 PM

If Sen. James Marleau did nothing wrong with funds in his campaign committee, he’s adopted a counterproductive approach to communicating it.

On Sunday, the Detroit Free Press, in a story by Staff Writer Paul Egan, reported that Mr. Marleau (R-Lake Orion) has used campaign contributions to pay credit card bills totaling more than $114,000 since 2011 with little to no detail about the reason for the purchases.

Mr. Marleau was the main example in the story of how candidates for office – and term-limited incumbents like Mr. Marleau – can obscure the purchases they make and their purpose by simply reporting the expense is to pay a credit card bill. The Free Press reported that $65,000 of the $114,000 Mr. Marleau’s Senate committee paid to cover credit card bills was not itemized.

As a term-limited incumbent, Mr. Marleau can still raise money and spend it toward incidental expenses of holding office. That could mean using it to cover attending conferences, putting on events in his district, travel and so forth. But like any other candidate committee, it cannot be used for personal expenses. The Bureau of Elections requires itemizing purchases with credit cards when they exceed $50.

The Free Press story highlighted clothing purchased from Kohl’s, gasoline bought on the same day he obtained a Senate reimbursement for a trip to Lansing, cable and Internet charges and a purchase from the Home Shopping Network.

And what was Mr. Marleau’s response to this story, which raises serious questions?

Nothing.

The Free Press reported he declined repeated requests to discuss the issue. And Tuesday, when Mr. Marleau appeared on the Senate floor, he also refused to comment to reporters there.

Now, there could well be legitimate explanations for these purchases. Maybe the clothing at Kohl’s was for a bunch of Polo-style shirts he planned to have his logo placed on for his staff to use (he seemed to say as much in response to questions from the Bureau of Elections). Maybe he goofed on the gasoline and it was a mix-up. Maybe the purchase on the Home Shopping Network was for some type of supply that would be handy for an elected official holding an event, like a microphone. I’m spitballing here. The Comcast bill, which appears to be a recurring monthly expense, is harder to figure.

Or maybe there is no legitimate explanation and Mr. Marleau is using the funds donors have given to him, ostensibly for the purpose to aid him with the expenses of serving in office or to help the Senate Republican Caucus, as a slush fund. If that’s the case, that would be illegal and get him into a pile of legal trouble.

Mr. Marleau is his own campaign treasurer. And hey, this is an example of why candidates are not supposed to serve as their own treasurers because they have no one to blame when something gets fouled up.

If Mr. Marleau has nothing to hide, he could speak publicly about what happened and explain what he spent the money on and why.

But the longer Mr. Marleau hunkers down and says nothing, the more scrutiny he will attract.