Marco Rubio's shaky finances won't topple his campaign — unless there is more to the story

The New York Times has taken yet another swing at Marco Rubio. After dissecting the Florida senator and Republican presidential hopeful's driving record, the Gray Lady ran an expose on Rubio's finances.

Judging from the reactions even of people who are not Rubio supporters, both swings look like misses. The report that Rubio amassed four traffic violations since 1993 — the total number only becomes high when you include Rubio's wife — was mocked on Twitter under the hashtag #RubioCrimeSpree. This was soon followed, after the second report, by a hashtag #RubioSpendingSpree.

Rubio's campaign has raised money off both controversies. "The attack from The Times is just the latest in their continued hits against Marco and his family," spokesman Alex Conant said in a statement. "What The Times misses is that getting rich is not what has driven Senator Rubio's financial decisions."

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

While Rubio's driving was a mildly interesting human interest story at best, and a slightly silly attempt at a hit piece at worst, his finances are a more complicated matter. The Times story followed him from his late 20s, when fresh out of law school he began a political rise that always seemed a few steps behind his rise in net worth.

Rubio, the son of a bartender and a maid, got into debt, even though he periodically made good money as a lawyer, instructor, and author. He at one point owned multiple homes, with at least the first two bought with no money down. He saved little, bought an $80,000 boat, and had a political action committee that ran afoul of campaign finance law.

None of this is surprising. Rubio didn't always keep his political and personal spending as neatly separated as either prudence or the rules required. Ever since his 2010 campaign for Senate against Charlie Crist, there have been persistent rumors that Rubio's finances may derail him. It hasn't happened yet.

Why? Because while Rubio certainly lives comfortably, he isn't rich by Washington standards. It is difficult to argue that he has used public service to enrich himself when he is only now getting settled financially in his 40s and he still has fairly modest means. (Any significant interruption in his earnings would put that boat on sale faster than you can say New York Times.)

It is easy for Rubio to frame his money troubles as normal problems Americans go through, like student loan and mortgage debt, even if some of the sums involved are large and not everyone has access to company credit cards. Trying to connect this to what Rubio would do with government spending in office seems like a stretch, especially in light of his actual public record.

That's not to say that there aren't any legitimate concerns with the way Rubio mixed his personal and political spending. But there is nothing so significant that it would make anyone already inclined to vote for him decide to switch allegiances. And it probably wouldn't prevent many people from considering him.

Any Democratic readers who doubt this, ask yourself what it would take to keep you from voting for Hillary Clinton. After all, the former secretary of state's $225,000 speaking fees suggest she could buy herself a handful of Rubio's boats with just a couple of speeches.

One thing could change the significance of this story, however. Keep an eye on Norman Braman. The billionaire donor subsidized Rubio's job as a college instructor, hired him as a lawyer, and continues to employ Rubio's wife.

If Rubio's reliance on rich donors begins to look like patronage, and if any evidence emerges that there has been some kind of quid pro quo anywhere in the senator's past, that's when this can grow into an actual scandal.

People don't expect their politicians to be perfect. They do like to feel reasonably confident they aren't bought and paid for, a suspicion that skeptics of the current campaign finance system already harbor.

Rubio will emerge from these New York Times stories unscathed, perhaps even in a stronger position since it's always good for a Republican candidate to be at war with the media. But other reporters will presumably keep digging.