I completely agree with the notion that private jets and other forms of conspicuous consumption don't set a good example.
I'll push back a bit on the use of the phrase "campaign vehicle". It's not that simple.
Our current sitting president was well known for using public transportation to commute to work when he was a senator. The massive vehicles that come with a full suite of communications equipment and security came with the job of president, and these vehicles are a requirement, not a choice. When he had the choice, the current president chose the form of transportation that consumes least fuel.
A president or vice president is *required* to use the vehicles supplied by the military and secret service, even on personal or campaign trips. However, when Air Force One is used for a campaign trip, the campaign must reimburse the Air Force for the equivalent cost of chartering a private jet. So the campaign pays for the basic transportation, and the taxpayers pay for the upgrade to vehicles that keep the president in communication and secure at all times. That's part of the job, not a choice, and there are reasonable rules in place around reimbursement for campaigning.
Source:
https://www.npr.org/2016/07/07/485097272/fact-check-air-force-one-who-pays
If you're going to call politicians out for their conspicuous consumption, I'd say it makes sense to focus on those who, when not constrained by their work duties, *choose* to throw away fuel in a grand display of their wealth. It also makes sense to look at the number of personal or campaign trips they make while in office. I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers to assess who the worst offenders are by that measure.