[ad_1]
An independent congressional watchdog wants to dig deeper into separate campaign finance allegations against two lawmakers, Reps. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) and Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.).
The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), an independent, nonpartisan committee that reviews allegations of misconduct against House members and staff, alleged Thursday that Ogles may have misrepresented a loan to his 2022 campaign, transferring far less than the amount originally disclosed from an undetermined source.
In a separate report released Thursday, the OCE said Cherfilus-McCormick may have made “impermissible payments” to a state PAC that then paid various vendors and her unofficial campaign manager, who was allegedly “heavily involved” in the production of franked communications from her congressional office but was not compensated with official funds.
The OCE also alleged her campaign may have accepted and failed to report an excessive in-kind contribution as well as transactions with her businesses.
The Hill has contacted spokespersons for Ogles and Cherfilus-McCormick for comment.
Ogles allegations: loan or excessive contribution?
After Ogles disclosed a $320,000 loan to his campaign in April 2022, local media pointed out that he did not disclose sufficient income, assets or liabilities in his requisite personal financial disclosure, raising questions about the source of the funds.
The OCE commenced its review in February 2024 following a complaint from Campaign Legal Center, but said Ogles was uncooperative. On the final day of the OCE’s review, however, the committee said Ogles’ counsel confirmed he had only transferred $20,000 of that total to his campaign.
“While Representative Ogles had identified approximately $320,000 in personal funds available for loan to the campaign, only $20,000 was actually transferred,” Ogles’ counsel told the OCE, according to the committee’s report.
Ogles later told the press in a statement that “[w]hile we only needed to transfer $20,000, unfortunately, the full amount of my pledge was mistakenly included on my campaign’s FEC reports.”
But the OCE said — based on “limited evidence” — that Ogles may have intentionally misrepresented the total amount of money he loaned his campaign during the primary, and that it was unable to determine if the loan came from his personal funds.
“In the absence of accurate financial disclosure reports and without cooperation from Rep. Ogles, the OCE was unable to determine whether Rep. Ogles’s alleged $20,000 loan to his campaign was made from his personal funds or came from another source representing an excessive contribution,” the OCE said.
The complicated web of Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign cash
The OCE on Thursday laid out several allegations regarding Cherfilus-McCormick and the flow of money between various entities supporting her federal campaign.
The committee said it obtained evidence that a limited liability company owned by the congresswoman made several payments to the state political committee Leadership in Action PAC, which allegedly made payments to her informal campaign manager and various vendors on behalf of her campaign.
The OCE identified the informal campaign manager as an individual named Mark Goodrich and said he went on to perform work in her congressional office, including work on franked communications sent to her constituents, but was not compensated through official funds. Goodrich could not be identified for comment.
The committee said it was unable to determine whether or how Goodrich was compensated for his work for the Cherfilus-McCormick’s congressional office, as neither cooperated with the review.
The OCE also alleged that a Florida company, Truth & Justice, Inc., made more than $150,000 in payments to a printing and mailing vendor on behalf of Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign, significantly exceeding the individual contribution limit of $2,900 per election in 2022.
The committee also said it identified three instances in which Cherfilus-McCormick may have failed to report apparent transfers between her campaigns and business accounts, but said that it was “unable to ascertain whether other unreported transactions may have taken place” since neither the congresswoman nor her campaign cooperated with the review.
[ad_2]
Source link