The House Committee on Ethics determined in a report released Friday that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) failed to comply with the House’s gifting rule as part of her appearance at the 2021 Met Gala, determining that she improperly accepted free admission to the gala for her partner and failed to pay full fair market value for some of the items she wore at the event.
Ocasio-Cortez and her counsel, the report states, sought to comply with House ethics requirements, but found that she accepted more than $3,700 in rented apparel — including a white gown emblazoned with “Tax the Rich” in red letters — and a hairpiece, but paid less than $1,000. . . .
The committee declined to sanction Ocasio-Cortez, provided that she donate the $250 value of the Met Gala meal provided to her partner who went to the event with her, Riley Roberts, and pays the brand behind her Met Gala look, Brother Vellies, an additional $2,733.28 “for the fair market value of the goods that she received in connection with her 2021 Met Gala attendance.” . . .
Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Mike Casca, said in a statement that the congresswoman accepts the committee’s ruling.
Category Archives: ethics investigations
Lloyd Mayer on the Johnson Amendment
The always insightful tax and election law scholar Lloyd Mayer on the Johnson Amendment here. From the post:
Churches and other houses of worship can endorse political candidates without risking the loss of their tax-exempt status, the Internal Revenue Service said in a legal document the tax-collection agency filed on July 7, 2025. This guidance is at odds with a law Congress passed more than 70 years ago that’s known as the Johnson Amendment and applies to all charitable nonprofits, whether they are secular or religious.
The Conversation U.S. asked Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor who has studied the regulation of churches’ political activities, to explain what this statute is, how the IRS seeks to change its purview and why this matters.
What’s the Johnson Amendment?
The Johnson Amendment is a provision that Lyndon B. Johnson added to a tax bill passed by Congress in 1954, when he was a senator. It says that any charity that wants to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code cannot “participate in, or intervene in … any political campaign on behalf of … any candidate for public office.” In the U.S., all houses of worship are designated as charities by the IRS.
The IRS has interpreted the Johnson Amendment for more than 70 years to mean that charities cannot speak in favor of political candidates or take any other action that supports or opposes them.
“Hawaiʻi Senator Didn’t Disclose Possible Conflict Of Interest Before Voting”
From the Honolulu City Beat article:
Donovan Dela Cruz voted four times in favor of passing a bill designed to protect māmaki tea, even though he owns a māmaki tea business.
. . .
The Senate’s rules require that members cannot vote on legislation if there is “a direct financial interest” in the legislation, defined as affecting the legislator’s “personal business, property or financial interest.”
Former NJ Senator Menendez Starts 11 year Sentence for Corruption
The N.Y. Times has a long profile of Robert Menendez, the former Senator from New Jersey, who is scheduled to start his federal prison sentence for corruption today.
“Trump’s flurry of pardons include some to campaign contributors”
An ABC analysis:
Of Trump’s 60 pardons or commutations unrelated to Jan. 6, about one in five of them have gone to those who have some sort of financial or political connection to him. Here is a list of those dozen recipients.
“Watchdog links Florida Dem to more potential House rules violations”
From Politico:
A congressional watchdog office has found reason to believe that Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick requested community project funding, also known as earmarks, on behalf of a for-profit entity — a potential violation of House rules.
The findings of a new report made public Thursday by the Office of Congressional Conduct — which reviews outside ethics complaints against House members, investigates complaints and recommends further action to the House Ethics Committee — builds on the allegations the Florida Democrat has been facing since 2023.
That same office is the subject of an NYT story today, reporting that House Speaker Mike Johnson “waited more than four months to constitute the Office of Congressional Conduct, preventing it from investigating lawmakers. He has yet to name enough members to allow it to operate at full strength.”
“Trump pardons ‘humbled’ John G. Rowland, former CT governor”
An excerpt from the CT Mirror about a governor convicted of corruption and campaign finance charges:
John G. Rowland, the thrice-elected and twice-convicted former Republican governor of Connecticut, said he was “humbled and appreciative” Wednesday after learning he was the recipient of a pardon from President Donald J. Trump.
* * *
“I am very humbled and appreciative,” Rowland said via email. “I have been blessed with a wonderful family and friends that have been through a great deal over the years. This is a wonderful final resolution.”
Retired FBI agents who investigated him begged to differ, as did a member of the bipartisan impeachment committee whose inquiry prompted his resignation as governor nearly 21 years ago.
“It’s a sad day for justice. Rowland deserved what he got,” said Charles Urso, a former FBI agent who worked on Rowland’s first case, which involved bid rigging. “It’s a misuse of pardons to let off politicians.”
“Trump administration ramps up push as crypto ally”
The WaPo piece’s subhead:
The administration’s full-throated support of crypto is raising concern from ethics experts who say it overlaps with the president’s personal investments.
“Donald Trump’s Politics of Plunder”
Evan Osnos, in the latest issue of the New Yorker, reviews the state of American oligarchy and the First Family’s use of the Oval Office as a private moneymaking machine.
One small excerpt:
Even seasoned practitioners of Washington pay-to-play have been startled by the new rules for buying influence. In December, a seat at a group dinner at Mar-a-Lago could be had for a million-dollar contribution to MAGA Inc., a super PAC that serves as a war chest for the midterms. More recently, one-on-one conversations with the President have become available for five million. The return on investment is uncertain, a government-affairs executive told me: “What if he’s in a bad mood? You have no clue where the money is eventually going.” Another lobbying veteran described the frank exchange as “outer-borough Mafia shit.”
And on a related note, in the NYT today: “Trump Pardoned Tax Cheat After Mother Attended $1 Million Dinner”
“High-profile lawyers face lasting consequences of election fraud claims”
Elections have consequences. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reminds us that — at least sometimes – lying about elections has consequences too.
“Missouri campaign watchdog is once again unable to function due to vacancies”
Last fall, St. Louis attorney Brad Ketcher read the news that a Republican candidate for the Missouri Senate was using money from his church to help fund his campaign.
As the chief of staff to former Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan in the 1990s, Ketcher helped establish the Missouri Ethics Commission, a state agency that enforces campaign finance and ethics laws.
He was so “appalled” when the Senate candidate in question won the seat in November that Ketcher filed an ethics complaint asking the commission to investigate.
But in April, he learned his complaint was getting thrown out because there weren’t enough commission members to convene a meeting to review it.
“Congressional watchdog office left powerless as House leaders have yet to fill board seats”
House leaders have yet to appoint board members to an independent office designed to investigate ethics complaints against lawmakers and their staff members, leaving the entity powerless for the time being and sparking concerns among outside watchdogs.
The House rules package for the new Congress, which was approved in January along party lines, re-authorized the nonpartisan Office of Congressional Ethics and gave it a new name: the Office of Congressional Conduct.
But more than two months later, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who have the authority to fill the board seats, have yet to do so.
“Campaign Board Head Hints Eric Adams Could Be Denied Reelection Matching Funds”
The subhead to this report from The City: “Executive director says Campaign Finance Board members will make “judgment calls” that could take into account a recent federal indictment for allegedly obtaining $10 million illegally in 2021.”
“Harlan Crow Provided Clarence Thomas at Least 3 Previously Undisclosed Private Jet Trips, Senate Probe Finds”
These flights were revealed by the Senate Judiciary Committee based on disclosure by Crow, not Justice Thomas.
Justice Thomas has maintained (including in response to the latest) that he was told that these flights fall under an exception in the disclosure laws for transportation related to personal hospitality. And while that may well be true, that advice would not have followed the text of the relevant statute, which exempts “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality.”
Consider, for example, how the author of today’s SCOTUS majority opinion in the Garland v. Cargill bumpstock case might address the argument that “food, lodging, or entertainment” includes “transportation.”