House Ethics Extends Stockman Probe

The Texas Republican is being probed for possible campaign finance reporting violations.

Rep. Steve Stockman and Ted Nugent
©2013 Richard A. Bloom
Billy House
See more stories about...
Billy House
June 11, 2014, 12:17 p.m.

Rep. Steve Stock­man will con­tin­ue to be in­vest­ig­ated by the House Eth­ics Com­mit­tee to de­term­ine wheth­er he vi­ol­ated fed­er­al re­port­ing re­quire­ments for cam­paign dona­tions from two em­ploy­ees of his con­gres­sion­al of­fice.

In mak­ing the an­nounce­ment, the typ­ic­ally se­cret­ive com­mit­tee was re­quired to re­lease a re­port from an­oth­er in­vest­ig­at­ive agency that — for the first time pub­licly — de­tails the ac­cus­a­tions against the Texas Re­pub­lic­an.

The re­port, from the Of­fice of Con­gres­sion­al Eth­ics, says that Stock­man’s con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tee al­legedly filed Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion re­ports identi­fy­ing 2013 con­tri­bu­tions as hav­ing been made by fam­ily mem­bers of the em­ploy­ees, not the em­ploy­ees them­selves. The al­leg­a­tions also in­clude claims that Stock­man paid the two em­ploy­ees for full-time work when they may have only been per­form­ing of­fi­cial du­ties part-time.

OCE, in re­fer­ring the mat­ter to the Eth­ics Com­mit­tee, writes in the re­port that if Stock­man made or filed false of­fi­cial state­ments or oth­er­wise at­temp­ted to mis­lead in­vest­ig­at­ors, he may have vi­ol­ated fed­er­al law and House rules.

The re­port notes that Stock­man and sev­er­al staffers re­fused to co­oper­ate by testi­fy­ing or provid­ing doc­u­ments to OCE dur­ing its ini­tial in­vest­ig­a­tion.

Two of those em­ploy­ees were ul­ti­mately fired in Oc­to­ber, ac­cord­ing to pub­lished ac­counts last year.

Stock­man is­sued a state­ment Wed­nes­day: “While we did ex­per­i­ence some FEC re­port­ing er­rors, the fact is that we ac­know­ledged and cor­rec­ted them in due course. I nev­er re­sen­ted the Eth­ics Com­mit­tee look­ing in­to the re­port­ing mis­takes, but the OCE in­vest­ig­at­ors were poorly trained and ex­tremely un­pro­fes­sion­al and re­peatedly vi­ol­ated the rules we have set up to deal with this type of in­quiry.”

Earli­er this year Stock­man re­leased a state­ment at­trib­ut­ing the in­vest­ig­a­tion to a fil­ing er­ror with the FEC made by an ac­count­ant who was a cam­paign vo­lun­teer.

The com­mit­tee could have dropped the case out­right if it found no reas­on to con­tin­ue with its in­quiry. Even so, Eth­ics Com­mit­tee Chair­man Mi­chael Con­away, R-Texas, and rank­ing mem­ber Linda Sanc­hez, D-Cal­if., stopped short of an­noun­cing in a joint state­ment that a spe­cial in­vest­ig­at­ive sub­com­mit­tee with sub­poena powers will be formed to ex­pand the in­quiry. Any form­al re­com­mend­a­tion on wheth­er Stock­man vi­ol­ated House stand­ards of con­duct and, if so, should re­ceive pun­ish­ment, ul­ti­mately would have to go through such a pan­el.

In their com­mit­tee an­nounce­ment, Con­away and Sanc­hez note that “the mere fact of con­duct­ing fur­ther re­view “¦ does not it­self in­dic­ate that any vi­ol­a­tion has oc­curred, or re­flect the judg­ment on be­half of the com­mit­tee.” Con­away and Sanc­hez provided no time frame for when an up­date will oc­cur.

Rather, the mat­ter has been des­ig­nated for fur­ther re­view un­der Com­mit­tee Rule 18(a), a des­ig­na­tion that has en­abled a num­ber of oth­er eth­ics cases against Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­an to lan­guish, some for years, without fur­ther com­ment.

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
16 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×