The New Years' Eve Ethics Massacre

The House Ethics Committee's decisions let congressmen put campaign cash in their pockets and make other allegations of misusing their offices disappear.

Yesterday the House Ethics Committee effectively legalized the conversion of campaign funds for personal use by members of the House of Representatives. They can now take dollars from donors and put them in their pocket. It's not what they said they did, but under the cover of the New Years' holiday, Ethics Committee Democrats and Republicans pulled a fast one, legalizing a money laundry so blatantly corrupt it would embarrass Walter White. They also made many other allegations of wrongdoing disappear.

Six Reports of Misconduct

Let's start with the context. Congress's independent ethics watchdog, the Office of Congress Ethics, raised the alarm on four members of Congress. They issued six reports on suspected improper activities of–

1. Rep. Alex Mooney, in reports dated July 23, 2021 and December 22, 2021

2. Rep. Sanford Bishop, in a report dated February 10, 2020

3. Rep. Ronny Jackson, in reports dated December 22, 2021 and March 25, 2024

4. Rep. Wesley Hunt, in a report dated March 25, 2024

The Office of Congressional Ethics is not empowered to make final determinations or punish members of Congress, but they do conduct investigations and make recommendations to the House Ethics Committee regarding their findings. OCE sent the Ethics Committee six reports on member misconduct that sat unaddressed for as long as 1,785 days.

The House Ethics Committee

The Ethics Committee is composed equally of Democrats and Republicans, with members appointed by the Speaker or the Minority Leader. The notional purpose of the Ethics Committee is to police member misconduct, its apparent purpose is to insulate members of Congress from accountability for ethical misconduct (except when leadership withdraws their protection from a particular member.)

The Committee is not a court of law. It cannot put anyone in jail. It was created by the House of Representatives to establish and enforce official standards of conduct. Those official standards of conduct are significantly broader than criminal law and are intended to protect the integrity and reputation of the House of Representatives. As a result, the Committee should be quicker to act than a court of law and should act on a wider range of issues. The danger arising from having a dishonest member of Congress – of letting them vote on issues where they have a financial stake, of taking official funds for personal use, of abusing their staff and their office – is sufficiently great that it should not be allowed to fester.

The harshest penalty the Committee can recommend is expulsion of a member of Congress. For serious matters, the Committee almost always pulls their punches and lets members resign before they issue condemnatory reports. The recent matter with respect to Rep. Gaetz was unusual only in that members issued the report even after Gaetz resigned, and they did so over the objection of the committee chair and the Speaker of the House. When the senior Democrat leaked the Committee's effort to paper over the Gaetz matter, Republican members seriously contemplated punishing her as well.

As a historical matter, the Ethics Committee failed so publicly at its mission after the turn of the millennium that the pretense it is focused on ethics could no longer be credibly maintained. In response to the public outcry, the House established the independent Office of Congressional Ethics in March 2008 to clean up the culture of corruption in Congress.

That corruption festered when Ethics Committee Democrats and Republicans essentially agreed to avoid investigating anyone for misconduct. The results were a series of scandals ranging from the Jack Abramoff affair to a corrupt pedophile serving as Speaker of the House of Representatives, from a Member of the House sexually preying on House pages to a member of Congress blatantly selling earmarks. The website Govtrack maintains a database of allegations of misconduct by Members of Congress and their disposition – it's not a pleasant read.

What did the House Ethics Committee do?

On December 30th, 2024, the House Ethics Committee "resolved" the OCE's allegations of misconduct against the four members by issuing new guidance on the personal use of campaign funds and wiping away those allegations and others. The Ethics Committee made three important decisions.

First, the Ethics Committee decided that the Congressional prohibition on using campaign donations for personal use is limited to instances that violate federal law. The House of Representatives' rules are broader than the language codified in statute, so they narrowed its application.

Second, the Ethics Committee made it virtually impossible to prove that a member of Congress violated the rules. The Ethics Committee declared guidance from the Federal Election Committee with respect to conversion of funds are "ambiguous" and provide for "significant gray areas." Accordingly, the Ethics Committee decided it would not punish Members who converted those funds unless there was evidence "that any Member intentionally misused campaign funds for their personal benefit." They required specific proof that a Member intended to misuse campaign funds in knowing violation of the rules. And then they looked the other way.

Third, the Ethics Committee made OCE allegations regarding other violations of the House rules disappear without a trace.

How do we know? The decisions in the cases for Reps. Mooney, Bishop, Jackson, and Hunt – and perhaps unknown others – which created a new weak standard and ignored evidence provided by the OCE.

Rep. Alex Mooney

Let's look at Rep. Mooney. The OCE found in October 2021 that Rep. Mooney used campaign funds to purchase more than $17,000 in gift cards in violation of FEC rules and had the effect of concealing the ultimate recipient of those funds (which may have been Rep. Mooney's pocket). He also had another $22,865 in another 45 unitemized reimbursements.

In addition, OCE found in December 2021 the OCE found Rep. Mooney and his family received a free trip to Aruba, plus lodging, from a company that provides services to his campaign. It also found that he used his official staff to perform campaign work and personal errands. The OCE also raised the concern that Rep. Mooney concealed or falsified information to the OCE.

1,256 days after the OCE filed its report with the Ethics Committee, the Committee released the following statement:

The Committee has now unanimously determined to close several such investigative matters, including those relating to allegations referred by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) involving Representative Sanford Bishop, Representative Wesley Hunt, Representative Ronny Jackson, and Representative Alexander Mooney, in addition to other confidential matters that have been under review….

In several of the matters that the Committee is resolving, there was evidence that the Member’s campaign did not fully comply with the applicable standards relating to personal use of campaign funds, as well as reporting or recordkeeping requirements for campaign expenditures.

However, there was no evidence that any Member intentionally misused campaign funds for their personal benefit. The Committee has contacted relevant Members to provide them with a copy of the updated guidance as well as specific findings and recommendations with respect to that Member’s campaign activity. The Committee will take no further action in those matters and will consider them closed."

That's it. The Ethics Committee provided them a copy of the "updated" Ethics guidance and specific findings and recommendations with respect to their campaign activity.

But, wait a minute. What about the free $10,000 family trip to the Ritz-Carlton in Aruba, paid by a campaign donor? What about the lodging, meals, tropical drinks, and kid's beach resort facilities? What about the use of official staff time to manage babysitting, purchasing family groceries, establishing college savings accounts, and caring for Skipper, the family dog?

It's all there in OCE's report, in black and white.

Rep. Mooney and his family enjoyed a vacation to the Ritz-Carlton in Aruba, paid for by HSP Direct, LLC, a company to which Rep. Mooney has significant financial and personal ties. Congressional staff resources were devoted to arranging the Mooneys’ travel, all while Rep. Mooney evaded Ethics Committee review of the trip.

Former Staffer 1 told the OCE that at some time every staff member was asked to perform personal errands for Rep. Mooney or his family, but that staff members in certain positions, such as schedulers or those who worked for both the campaign and the official office, were required to perform personal errands on a daily basis. Former Staffer 1 stated, “I think the understanding is: If you work on the campaign, you also work for the Mooney family. You were at their beck and call for anything, even though you got official salary as well.

"New employees were immediately made aware that Rep. Mooney and his family expected staff to perform personal errands." This included that one staffer "found herself babysitting Rep. Mooney’s youngest daughter once or twice a week and had difficulty completing campaign work when she was present in West Virginia because of how often she was asked to do something for the Mooney family."

Rep. Mooney’s staff frequently were required to absorb costs associated with Rep. Mooney’s personal errands or personal expenditures.

When the Mooneys were unable to watch their dog Skipper, they asked Former Staffer 3 to drive Skipper from their home in Charles Town, West Virginia to Dr. Mooney’s parents’ home in Bethesda, Maryland. Former Staffer 3 could not recall how many times this occurred but told the OCE that it happened on several occasions.

The list goes on – watering the plants, taking care of the cars, using official funds for non-official travel, party planning. The text messages are reproduced in the report.

What did the Ethics Committee have to say to Rep. Mooney about OCE's allegations? Did they engage with any of the facts? OCE's allegations didn't just have to do with pocketing of campaign funds for personal use, but inappropriate use of official expenses and forcing official staff to do non-official duties.

The House Ethics Committee just wiped it all away without a public word.

---

Rep. Bishop

The Office of Congressional Ethics found on February 10, 2020, that Rep. Bishop may have improperly disbursed campaign funds for personal use and improperly spent his official member funds for annual holiday parties in the district. What did they find specifically?

The OCE found evidence that the Sanford Bishop for Congress campaign committee likely spent tens of thousands of dollars in campaign funds on fuel, golf expenses, meals, travel, tuition, and entertainment that likely were personal in nature.

Among the inappropriate costs incurred were golf club memberships, the purchase of golf clubs, brunch for family members, groceries, and so on.

In addition, it became apparent that Bishop's campaign committee treasurer neglected to store campaign records, intentionally misreported information to the FEC, and intentionally converted campaign funds to her personal use. (Rep. Bishop, besides violating the rules, was apparently a victim of illegal behavior by his treasurer.)

Rep. Bishop also allegedly spent official Congressional funds on banquets in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 that were Christmas parties that his staff attended as well as twenty colleagues of his wife. These were billed as constituent meetings and cost a combined $16,087.87.

It took 1,785 days for the House Ethics Committee to "resolve" the OCE's findings on Rep. Bishop. The House Ethics Committee's statement did not address the misuse of official office funds. Beyond the statement above, it stated no specific findings regarding the appropriateness of Rep. Bishop's behavior.

---

Rep. Jackson

Rep. Ronny Jackson is no stranger to trouble. The Defense Department Office of the Inspector General found that when Rep. Jackson served as the physician to the president of the United States, he engaged in a wide range of misconduct.

We concluded that [Rear Admiral] Jackson’s overall course of conduct toward subordinates disparaged, belittled, bullied, and humiliated them, and fostered a negative work environment by failing to treat subordinates with dignity and respect. We also concluded that RDML Jackson failed to conduct himself in an exemplary manner in his treatment of subordinates throughout his tenure at [White House Medical Unit]. His treatment of subordinates created a negative work environment that witnesses said made an unfavorable impact on the overall command climate.

We concluded that RDML Jackson engaged in inappropriate conduct involving the use of alcohol during two incidents.

The OCE's December 12, 2022 report found Rep. Jackson may have converted funds to personal use. Specifically, he used "campaign funds to pay for unlimited access to the Amarillo Club, a private dining club located in Amarillo, Texas." In total he spent $5,907.13 for dues, fees, meals, and other services Rep. Jackson declined to cooperate with the OCE investigation.

Undeterred by the OCE's referral to the Ethics Committee, the OCE found in a March 25, 2024 report that Rep. Jackson continued to convert campaign funds for personal use. He continued to pay for the private dining club that was the subject of the first OCE referral, racking up another $6,839.18.

Surely this must meet the Ethics Committee's new definition of intentionally using campaign funds for personal benefit. He knew it was inappropriate and persisted. We will never know what the Ethics Committee thought because they don't tell us. They washed away all twelve thousand dollars a mere 749 days after the initial referral.

---

Rep. Hunt

Now we turn to Rep. Hunt, regarding whom the OCE made a referral on March 25, 2024. Once again, the OCE made a determination that Hunt appears to have converted campaign funds for personal use. He "used campaign funds to pay for exclusive access to the Oak Room, a private social club in Houston, Texas."

Rep. Hunt largely refused to cooperate with OCE's investigation, which detailed $74,525.60 in expenditures, some of which were legitimate, but the OCE could not determine how much complied with the rules. Did the Ethics Committee look more deeply into the matter? Your guess is as good as mine.

---

Who else?

We know that OCE referred these four members to the House Ethics Committee out of concern they converted campaign funds for personal use and for other violations of the law. But the House Ethics Committee's statement leaves open the door that the Ethics Committee had started investigations of other Members of Congress on conversation of campaign funds before the Committee changed course.

The Committee has now unanimously determined to close several such investigative matters, including those relating to allegations referred by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) involving Representative Sanford Bishop, Representative Wesley Hunt, Representative Ronny Jackson, and Representative Alexander Mooney, in addition to other confidential matters that have been under review.

Is the committee saying there were other members being investigated for conversion of campaign funds for personal use? That it has closed those investigations because of its reinterpretation of the rules to effectively allow that conversion to occur? That it wiped away other allegations as well?

Without reporters digging around, the public asking questions, and other members of Congress speaking up, we will never know.

---

What to do about the House Ethics Committee?

I don't know what's happening over at the House Ethics Committee. I know a number of their staff and they are smart, well meaning, and dedicated. But they're not the ones in charge. In previous years we have seen committee members force out staff who were not willing to compromise the process. Who knows what the environment is like inside.

I write a lot about how process shapes outcomes. The structure of the House Ethics Committee has failed spectacularly in the past. It incentivizes scenarios where the committee members can feel pressure from their colleagues and from leadership to overlook improprieties by members to keep the peace.

Look at the recent matter of Rep. Gaetz. He engaged in wildly inappropriate behavior. But it also appears that he was the target of (Republican) leaks because he arose the ire of then-Speaker McCarthy, and that Republicans withdrew their protection of him so that the ethics process could go forward.

If we know this is what has happened, what else is happening? Why did these investigations drag on for more than a thousand days? Why are the rules regarding converting campaign funds to personal use watered down to nothing? Why did the Ethics Committee fail to publicly and substantively address the specific complaints against individual members? Why is this being buried in between Christmas and New Years Eve?

I can think of some plausible explanation for some of these questions. Perhaps the committee wanted to close out matters before the end of the year – although that doesn't explain sitting on most of the allegations for more than a thousand days. Perhaps they'd been working on watering down the rules regarding converting campaign funds for personal use for a while. But why not hold hearings to figure out whether that's a good idea? (Especially because it is not.)

Something here is very rotten. I can't believe all the members of the Ethics Committee are happy with the result and I suspect a number of them are unhapy with the process. The Ethics Committee said the Committee members "unanimously determined to close several such investigative matters," but shouldn't they (1) disclose all the investigative matters, and (2) give us the roll call vote for each matter, and (3) let us know what question they specifically voted upon?

If the members of the Ethics Committee are on board with the outcome, is this the kind of Ethics Committee that we want? One that serves the public's interest? One that serves the House's interests?

The ethics process is broken. There must be an independent ethics process where investigations and their recommendations are divorced from internal party politics and not designed to shield members from accountability for apparent wrongdoing.

The New Years's Eve Ethics Massacre is a repudiation of the Ethics Committee's job to hold Members of Congress to account for their wrongdoing and to be honest and forthright to the public about their behavior. By watering down the standard for conversion of campaign funds for personal use, it's a signal for corruption and deal dealing to flourish in the House of Representatives.