Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                 House Calendar No. 65
116th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                      {     116-359
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                      IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS
                       RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE
                         CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS







 
 
                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]








    December 19, 2019.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered 
                             to be printed



















                                                 House Calendar No. 65
116th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                      {     116-359
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                      IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS

                       RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE

                         CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS









              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]









    December 19, 2019.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered 
                             to be printed 
                               __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                      
38-685                     WASHINGTON : 2019 
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida,         KENNY MARCHANT, Texas,
  Chairman                             Ranking Member
GRACE MENG, New York                 JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania             GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota             JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland              MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi

                              REPORT STAFF

              Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
             Brittney Pescatore, Director of Investigations
                 David Arrojo, Counsel to the Chairman
           Christopher Donesa, Counsel to the Ranking Member
                Kathryn Lefeber Donahue, Senior Counsel
                         Michelle Seo, Counsel
                    Caroline Taylor, Staff Assistant
   
   
   
   

                                  iii


              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]











                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
  I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................1
 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY...............................................4
III. ALLEGATIONS......................................................5
      A. Allegations Relating to Consultant Services.............     5
          1. Background..........................................     5
              i. Stan Shore......................................     5
              ii. Speech Consultant..............................    11
              iii. Leadership Consultant.........................    13
          2. Relevant House Rules, Laws, and Other Applicable 
              Standards of Conduct...............................    14
              i. Unofficial Office Accounts and Volunteer 
                  Services.......................................    14
              ii. Consultant Services............................    14
              iii. Federal Employee Activities in Matters 
                  Affecting U.S. Government Interest.............    15
              iv. Official Appropriations........................    16
              v. Additional House Rules, Laws, and Other 
                  Standards of Conduct...........................    16
          3. Analysis............................................    16
              i. Representative Rodgers Used Official Funds to 
                  Compensate Consultants for Impermissible 
                  Services and Expenses..........................    17
              ii. Representative Rodgers Received Official 
                  Services from Consultants that were Voluntary 
                  or Compensated from Political Funds............    22
      B. Allegations Relating to Use of Official Resources for 
          Political and Campaign Activities......................    23
          1. Background..........................................    23
              i. Policies Regarding Political Work by Official 
                  Staff..........................................    23
              ii. Political Communications.......................    27
              iii. Debate Preparation............................    29
              iv. Travel for Political Purposes..................    30
              v. Additional campaign and other political 
                  activities by official staff...................    35
              vi. Voluntary Nature of Campaign Work..............    36
          2. Relevant House Rules, Laws and Other Applicable 
              Standards of Conduct...............................    36
              i. Use of Official Resources for Political and 
                  Campaign Activities............................    36
              ii. Additional House Rules, Laws, and Other 
                  Standards of Conduct...........................    38
          3. Analysis............................................    39
              i. Official Staff Time was Used for Campaign or 
                  Political Activities...........................    40
              ii. Congressional Offices and Facilities were Used 
                  for Political Activities.......................    41
              iii. MRA Funds Were Used for Campaign and Political 
                  Travel.........................................    42
              iv. Additional Improper Campaign and Political 
                  Activities by Official Staff...................    43
              v. Representative Rodgers Takes an Overbroad View 
                  of Whether an Activity can be Considered 
                  ``Official''...................................    44
              vi. Representative Rodgers is Responsible for the 
                  Misuse of Official Resources for Political 
                  Activities in her Office.......................    44
              vii. Representative Rodgers did not Compel her 
                  Staff to Assist with Her Campaigns, but Should 
                  Exercise Greater Care to Ensure Staff's 
                  Participation was Voluntary....................    46
      C. Allegations Relating to Use of Official and Campaign 
          Resources for Leadership Race..........................    47
          1. Background..........................................    47
          2. Relevant House Rules, Laws, and Other Applicable 
              Standards of Conduct...............................    49
          3. Analysis............................................    49
 IV. Remedial Action and Sanctions...................................50
      A. Representative Rodgers is Required to Reimburse the 
          Treasury for her Misuse of Official Resources..........    50
          1. Unauthorized Consultant Expenses....................    51
          2. Official Staff Time.................................    52
          3. MRA Funds for Travel Expenses.......................    54
          4. Total Recommended Reimbursement.....................    54
      B. Representative Rodgers' Conduct Merits Reproval by the 
          Committee..............................................    54
  V. Conclusion......................................................56
VII. Statement Under House Rule XIII, Clause 3(C)....................56
APPENDIX A: REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS' RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE'S 
  DRAFT REPORT...................................................    57
APPENDIX B: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS (REVIEW NO. 13-0906)....................................    60
APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS' RESPONSE TO THE OFFICE OF 
  CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS REFERRAL..................................   483
APPENDIX D: EXHIBITS TO COMMITTEE REPORT.........................   505


















                                                 House Calendar No. 65
116th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                      {     116-359
======================================================================



 
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MCMORRIS 
                                RODGERS

                                _______
                                

 December 19, 2019.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

               Mr. Deutch, from the Committee on Ethics, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

    In accordance with House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b), 
the Committee on Ethics (Committee) hereby submits the 
following Report to the House of Representatives:

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    On December 23, 2013, the Office of Congressional Ethics 
(OCE) transmitted to the Committee a Report and Findings (OCE's 
Referral) relating to Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers. 
OCE reviewed allegations that, from 2010 to 2012, 
Representative Rodgers paid a consultant for official services 
with funds from political committees; used official resources, 
including staff, for campaign activities; and combined official 
resources and campaign resources in furtherance of her campaign 
for a House leadership office. OCE found there was substantial 
reason to believe each of the allegations and recommended the 
Committee further review the allegations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See Report and Findings of the Office of Congressional Ethics 
(Review No. 13-0906) (Appendix B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 24, 2014, the Committee announced it would review 
the matter under Committee Rule 18(a). The Committee conducted 
a thorough investigation into a more expansive timeframe than 
OCE, reviewing alleged misconduct from 2008 through the start 
of the OCE investigation in 2013, and continuing on into 
2017.\2\ Such a wide-ranging investigation into more than eight 
years of activity takes extensive time and consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Committee Rule 18(d) states that ``[a]n inquiry shall not be 
undertaken regarding any alleged violation that occurred before the 
third previous Congress unless a majority of the Committee determines 
that the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation 
that occurred in a more recent Congress.'' The Committee unanimously 
voted to make this determination in this matter with respect to 
violations alleged to have occurred from 2008 to 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee's investigation was further prolonged by 
difficulty obtaining testimony from a central witness--a 
consultant hired by Representative Rodgers around March 2012 to 
serve as her speech coach (Speech Consultant)--who was the 
subject of an unrelated criminal prosecution. On July 31, 2014, 
the Committee received a referral from OCE, unconnected to 
Representative Rodgers, concerning allegations that another 
Member may have misused official funds to pay Speech Consultant 
for work performed for his congressional campaigns.\3\ That 
Member did not seek re-election to the House for the 114th 
Congress, and the Committee subsequently lost jurisdiction over 
the Member (Former Member) before it could complete its review 
of the matter. On September 3, 2015, Speech Consultant pled 
guilty in federal court to making false statements to OCE, in 
an apparent effort to minimize and conceal his role with the 
Former Member's campaigns. On March 23, 2016, the Committee 
received a separate referral from OCE relating to allegations 
that the Former Member's Chief of Staff may have also attempted 
to obstruct the same investigation, and persuaded or conspired 
with Speech Consultant to make false statements to OCE.\4\ As 
the Committee reviewed that OCE referral, the Former Member's 
Chief of Staff was federally indicted on April 6, 2016, for 
alleged misuse of official funds and false statements and 
omissions in connection with OCE's investigation. Speech 
Consultant, who was a key witness against the Former Member's 
Chief of Staff, refused to provide the Committee with any 
testimony in the matter relating to Representative Rodgers 
until he concluded his role as a witness in the unrelated 
prosecution. The trial of the Former Member's Chief of Staff, 
which ultimately resulted in a conviction, was delayed until 
2018; accordingly, Speech Consultant's own sentencing was not 
completed until August 29, 2018. As a result, the Committee 
obtained Speech Consultant's testimony in this matter just 
earlier this year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\OCE Review No. 14-2533; see also Statement of the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative Paul 
Broun (Oct. 29, 2014), available at https://ethics.house.gov/press-
release/statement-chairman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-
regarding-representative-paul-0.
    \4\OCE Review No. 15-0034.
    \5\In light of the Speech Consultant's past dishonesty with OCE, 
and the resulting concerns with his credibility as a witness, the 
Committee did not pursue a grant of immunity for Speech Consultant in 
exchange for his testimony. Nor did the Committee rely solely on any of 
his testimony, once it was obtained, in making its conclusions in this 
matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the course of its detailed investigation, the 
Committee found that many of the allegations involved areas of 
uncertainty facing the House community, particularly with 
respect to the extent certain House rules and laws apply to 
leadership offices. The Committee has therefore sought to use 
its investigation as an opportunity to provide guidance to the 
House with respect to those issues and has devoted additional 
time and resources to carefully consider that guidance.
    Based on its review, the Committee found that 
Representative Rodgers provided inappropriate compensation for 
consultant services from 2012 to 2017. Representative Rodgers 
defrayed the cost of official services she received from 
consultants with either political funds or the consultants' 
voluntary provision of services, in violation of House rules 
and laws prohibiting unofficial office accounts. She also used 
official funds for consultant services in a manner that would 
have been contrary to relevant laws and rules restricting 
expenditures of the Members' Representational Allowance (MRA); 
however, the official funds used to compensate her consultants 
were largely appropriated for use by her House leadership 
office and were therefore not subject to the same restrictions 
applicable to the MRA. The Committee found that the 
restrictions in place to safeguard most congressional funds 
from misuse are lacking with respect to leadership offices. In 
order to address some of those gaps, the Committee voted to 
refer certain allegations to the House Inspector General for 
review.
    The Committee also found that, from at least 2008 through 
2013, the congressional offices of Representative Rodgers were 
governed by sloppy practices, including inconsistent policies 
and poor record-keeping, which led to the misuse of official 
resources for campaign or other political purposes. House 
employees are free to engage in campaign activities on their 
own time, as volunteers or for pay, as long as they do not do 
so in congressional offices or facilities, or otherwise use 
official House resources, and are not coerced to do campaign 
work by their employing Member or senior staff. The Committee 
found that while Representative Rodgers' staff was not 
compelled to assist with her campaign, her staff used official 
resources, including official staff time, congressional office 
space, and travel funds, for political activities.
    With respect to the allegation that Representative Rodgers 
improperly combined official and campaign resources during her 
2012 leadership race, the Committee found Representative 
Rodgers used official resources in connection with a particular 
leadership race activity that was also paid for with campaign 
funds (specifically, distribution of an informational packet to 
other Members). While Representative Rodgers' staff sought and 
received guidance on this issue, her staff's conduct was 
inconsistent with that guidance.
    Although the Committee determined that Representative 
Rodgers likely did not know the full extent of her offices' 
misuse of resources, the Committee also determined that she 
should have been aware that some of the misuse was occurring. 
Certain aspects of this misconduct appear to have continued 
past 2013, after OCE launched its investigation; at that time, 
Representative Rodgers was clearly on notice regarding the need 
to exercise greater caution in ensuring her offices' compliance 
with House rules. Much of the misconduct uncovered during the 
Committee's investigation was conducted under the supervision 
of Representative Rodgers' then-Chief of Staff, Jeremy Deutsch. 
Mr. Deutsch was frequently involved in or otherwise had reason 
to be aware of the misuse of resources. There is no indication 
Mr. Deutsch brought the bulk of the misconduct to 
Representative Rodgers' attention; however, the Committee has 
long held Members responsible for ensuring their staff follow 
House rules, laws and other standards of conduct.\6\ Thus, 
Representative Rodgers is ultimately responsible for the 
conduct of her staff, including her Chief of Staff. It is the 
Member's responsibility to ensure that adequate policies are 
put in place and enforced to prevent her staff from acting 
contrary to House rules and laws. Representative Rodgers did 
not meet that responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\House Ethics Manual (2008) (Ethics Manual) at 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee notes that Representative Rodgers has 
accepted responsibility for the Committee's conclusions and has 
taken steps to prevent such conduct from happening in the 
future.\7\ The Committee appreciates the full cooperation and 
transparency she has shown throughout the investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Given the poor record-keeping in the congresswoman's 
office, and the diffuse, repeated nature of the misconduct at 
issue, the Committee is unable to precisely calculate the cost 
of official resources that were misused under Representative 
Rodgers' supervision. Based on a conservative analysis of the 
record, discussed in this Report, the Committee has estimated 
that, at a minimum, the value of the official resources misused 
was equal to or greater than $7,575.95.
    Based on the totality of the misconduct, the Committee 
unanimously voted to issue this Report, which will serve as a 
reproval of Representative Rodgers' conduct, and find that 
Representative Rodgers is required to reimburse the U.S. 
Treasury $7,575.95. Upon issuance of this Report and 
Representative Rodgers' reimbursement of the amount described 
above, the Committee will consider this matter closed.

                         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    OCE commenced a preliminary review into the allegations 
involving Representative Rodgers on August 28, 2013, and 
transmitted its Referral to the Committee on December 23, 2013.
    On January 17, 2014, counsel for Representative Rodgers 
voluntarily submitted a written statement to the Committee 
responding to OCE's Referral.
    The Committee reviewed materials provided by OCE. In 
addition, the Committee sent voluntary requests for information 
to Representative Rodgers and two of her consultants. Committee 
staff received and reviewed additional documents responsive to 
those requests. The Committee also consulted with the office of 
the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). In total, the Committee 
reviewed over 66,500 pages of materials. The Committee also 
conducted 30 witness interviews, including a voluntary 
interview of Representative Rodgers, who fully cooperated with 
the Committee's investigation.
    The Committee's general investigative jurisdiction includes 
the current and three previous Congresses. Pursuant to House 
Rule XI, clause 3(b)(3) and Committee Rule 18(d), the Committee 
may not begin an investigation involving allegations outside 
that general jurisdiction unless it votes to determine that the 
allegations occurring prior to the third previous Congress are 
directly related to alleged violations that occurred within the 
Committee's general jurisdiction. In this matter, the Committee 
voted to determine that the older allegations involving 
Representative Rodgers' improper compensation of consultants 
and misuse of official resources for campaign or political 
purposes are directly related to the allegations occurring 
since the start of the 113th Congress.
    Before its final vote on this matter, the Committee 
provided Representative Rodgers with a draft of this Report and 
invited her to respond in person or in writing. On December 10, 
2019, she submitted a written response noting that, while she 
disagreed with some of the findings reached by the Committee, 
she takes responsibility for its ultimate conclusions. The 
Committee considered all of Representative Rodgers' submissions 
and statements in resolving the matter. On December 18, 2019, 
the Committee unanimously voted to adopt this Report, to serve 
as a reproval of Representative Rodgers.

                            III. ALLEGATIONS

    Representative Rodgers has served as the Representative for 
the Fifth District of Washington since 2005. She was elected as 
Chair of the House Republican Conference (Conference) on 
November 14, 2012, and served in that role in the 113th, 114th 
and 115th Congresses.

             A. ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO CONSULTANT SERVICES

1. Background

            i. Stan Shore
    In 2012, Stan Shore became a general consultant to 
Representative Rodgers' re-election campaign, and continued to 
serve in that role each campaign cycle, until at least early 
2018.\8\ As general consultant, Mr. Shore provided strategic 
advice, worked with vendors, assisted with campaign debate 
preparation and speeches, and supervised campaign staff.\9\ Mr. 
Shore also provided services to Representative Rodgers' 
Leadership PAC and joint fundraising committee from 2012 to 
2018. In addition to his political work for Representative 
Rodgers, Mr. Shore held a variety of roles related to 
Representative Rodgers' congressional work. From 2008 to 2015, 
he served as her direct mail vendor. From December 2012 to June 
2013, he also worked as a salaried House employee at the 
Conference. Mr. Shore also worked on retainer as a consultant 
for the Conference from 2013 through 2017.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
    \9\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of Stan 
Shore. See also Exhibit 1 (email from Mr. Shore to Mr. Deutsch 
summarizing Mr. Shore's work for the Conference in the first quarter of 
2013).
    \10\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Shore held and was compensated for many of these roles 
concurrently. The following chart shows the payments that he 
received from those various offices from 2012 through 2018:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Mr. Shore also provided services to a Member other than 
Representative Rodgers during this time period, but payments for those 
services are not included in the chart.

                         PAYMENTS TO STAN SHORE FROM OFFICES/ORGANIZATIONS CONTROLLED BY REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS (2012-2018)\11\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2012         2013         2014         2015         2016         2017         2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodgers House Office MRA.....................................      $80,233   $46,823.24      $41,752   $10,267.50           --           --       $5,180
House Republican Conference (Consulting Fees)................           --      $64,500      $52,000      $44,000      $48,000      $48,000           --
House Republican Conference (Salary).........................       $5,833      $30,999           --           --           --           --           --
Rodgers Campaign Committee...................................      $78,910      $56,130     $232,882      $56,000     $146,764      $36,000       $5,000
Rodgers Other Political Committees...........................           --      $15,000   $26,441.72      $65,000      $57,000      $55,000      $71,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Mr. Shore took on responsibilities related to the 
Conference, he had several discussions regarding the amount and 
source of his compensation with Mr. Deutsch and discussed ways 
that a mix of campaign and official sources could be used to 
pay for his services and expenses.
              a. November 2012 to December 2012
    After Representative Rodgers was elected Conference Chair, 
but before she officially assumed the role in January 2013, Mr. 
Deutsch asked Mr. Shore to assist with the leadership 
transition.\12\ Mr. Shore traveled from his home in Washington 
State to Washington, D.C. to assist with the transition, 
spending several weeks working out of the congressional office 
in November and December 2012.\13\ During this time, Mr. Shore 
helped hire staff, set the conference budget, and provided 
strategic and communications advice.\14\ He considered himself 
to be acting in a volunteer capacity during the transition and 
initially did not expect to be paid.\15\ However, he said it 
later became clear ``more professional-level work'' was 
required of him, and he asked to be paid.\16\ Although 
Representative Rodgers did not have access to the Conference 
budget during the transition period, Mr. Deutsch was able to 
make arrangements with the outgoing Conference Chair to provide 
a salary to Mr. Shore, who was added to the payroll for the 
Conference as a ``Senior Advisor'' and paid $5,833 on December 
17, 2012.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
    \13\Mr. Shore said that, at the time, he paid the expenses 
associated with that travel out of his own pocket. Id. As discussed 
further, infra, he later sought to be reimbursed for those expenses.
    \14\Id.; 18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
    \15\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
    \16\Id.
    \17\Exhibit 2; 18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In December 2012, Mr. Shore discussed with Mr. Deutsch how 
he could continue to help with the Conference in 2013 and be 
compensated. He told Mr. Deutsch that he believed he could be 
paid from the ``technology budget, or out of the salaried 
section . . . but let's come up with a number for the year 
ahead so I can fly back there and help out without having to be 
concerned about it.''\18\ That same day, Mr. Shore proposed to 
be paid from the ``technology'' budget through a contract for 
communications consulting work, intending to make ``regular 
visits'' to D.C.\19\ Mr. Shore also told Mr. Deutsch that he 
would like to be reimbursed for his flight, hotel, and meals 
from his travel to D.C. in November and December 2012, and 
suggested those costs be paid from Representative Rodgers' 
Leadership PAC or campaign committee.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Exhibit 2. The ``technology budget,'' also referred to by 
Conference staff as the ``AE1'' budget, is a reference to a House-wide 
appropriation for ``Allowances and Expenses,'' which was used by the 
Conference for certain ``technology-related expenses.'' See Exhibit 3. 
It is separate from the budget allocations for personnel spending. Id; 
see also 18(a) Interview of Conference Operations Director (explaining 
there was a ``bucket of money'' available to leadership offices for 
technology, separate from the ``bucket'' available for staff salaries). 
According to the CAO, these funds could be used to satisfy any non-
salary expenses incurred by the Conference office.
    \19\Exhibit 4.
    \20\Id. When asked about this request, Mr. Shore told the Committee 
that the purpose of the travel in November and December 2012 was to 
work on the ``campaign reorganization,'' but acknowledged that his 
travel to assist with the Conference transition was not separate from 
his travel to assist with the campaign, and that he spent more of his 
time working on tasks related to the Conference than the campaign. 
18(a) Interview of Stan Shore. Mr. Shore also did not believe he ever 
received reimbursement for his travel in November and December. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During this time, Mr. Shore was actively involved in 
overseeing the Conference's broader budget planning. In 
particular, he worked to establish or renegotiate the 
Conference's technology-related vendor relationships that were 
paid through the ``technology'' budget, a set of funds 
allocated to the Conference pursuant to a separate House-wide 
appropriation for ``allowances and expenses,'' which Conference 
personnel also referred to as the ``AE1'' budget.\21\ The AE1 
budget was used to pay Mr. Shore's consulting firm, 
Datagraphics LLC (Datagraphics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore. See also Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              b. January 2013 to June 2013
    When Representative Rodgers took over as Conference Chair 
in January 2013, Mr. Shore remained on the payroll as a Senior 
Advisor through June 2013. While a Conference employee, Mr. 
Shore continued to reside in Washington State, traveling to 
D.C. approximately half of the time.\22\ At the same time that 
he was a salaried Conference employee, Mr. Shore received 
compensation from the Conference through his firm, 
Datagraphics.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore. Representative Rodgers told the 
Committee she didn't know whether Mr. Shore was living in Washington, 
D.C. while he was on the Conference payroll, but stated that he was 
``in and out'' of the Conference office during that time period. 18(a) 
Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \23\See Exhibit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to a draft contract Mr. Shore prepared, 
Datagraphics was engaged to provide vendor services to the 
Conference related to overseeing the development and design of 
Conference websites and technology.\24\ However, the draft 
contract was not signed and Mr. Shore never had a formal 
contract in place for Datagraphics' work with the 
Conference.\25\ It is not clear why the Conference did not 
execute the contract that Mr. Shore had drafted. However, in a 
March 2013 email to Mr. Shore, the Conference Operations 
Director stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Exhibit 7 (The contract specified that Datagraphics would 
``[d]evelop new e-communications initiatives with the Conference 
communications team, [c]reate and update interactive web features and 
other written and digital content, and [a]ssist the Conference 
Communications and Internet operations team with related projects.'').
    \25\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.

          Just spoke to [a CAO employee]. Your two payments of 
        $15,000 that he had been holding up will be released 
        tonight. No contract needed. . . . He said if we were a 
        Member office that this would not be allowed, they like 
        them to be protected with the contracts, but that we 
        can be exempt. He still would feel much better if you 
        signed a contract eventually.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Exhibit 8.

    Mr. Shore never did sign a contract. According to Mr. 
Shore, CAO had suggested a contract would need to be signed 
because they initially mistakenly believed he was a web service 
vendor subject to various technical certification requirements, 
and when CAO realized he was not providing the technical 
services that web vendors provide, they told him no contract 
was needed. CAO confirmed to the Committee that there is no 
general requirement that a contract be provided when payments 
are disbursed pursuant to a voucher submitted for ``contractual 
services,'' as occurred with Datagraphics. More stringent 
requirements are in place for services procured through the 
CAO-managed acquisitions process, as opposed to vouchered 
services.
    When asked by the Committee to identify what work he did in 
his capacity as a vendor and what work he did as a Senior 
Advisor to the Conference, Mr. Shore was unable to answer, 
explaining that he did not distinguish between those two 
roles.\27\ In an email to Mr. Deutsch at the end of March 2013, 
Mr. Shore summarized his contributions to the Conference during 
the prior quarter, in which he had been employed dually by the 
Conference and by Datagraphics.\28\ In the email, Mr. Shore 
recounted that he had assisted the Conference with video 
production, provided input on the Conference website redesign, 
wrote speeches and op-eds for the Conference chair, helped 
organize and attend the Member retreat, and helped hire the 
Conference communications staff.\29\ He also noted that he had 
helped develop the Conference budget, and had renegotiated the 
Conference's contract with a major vendor, which freed up funds 
in the AE1 budget.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
    \28\Exhibit 1.
    \29\Id.
    \30\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In early 2013, Mr. Shore played a significant role in 
devising the budget allocation for both the personnel and AE1 
budgets for the Conference.\31\ He also discussed using the 
surpluses from the AE1 account ``to solve some of the 
[Conference's] budget and personnel problems.''\32\ His 
structuring of the Conference budget extended to his own 
compensation, including the funds he received through 
Datagraphics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\See Exhibit 5; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10 .
    \32\Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 13, 2013, Mr. Shore emailed Mr. Deutsch, 
stating, ``I want to be perfectly frank with you about the 
compensation I would like to get,'' and explained that, for 
2013, he would like to receive $35,000 salary from the 
Conference, $66,000 through Datagraphics' contract with the 
Conference, and $20,000 from the campaign.\33\ He noted, 
however, that he still had concerns about covering his travel 
costs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Exhibit 11. Mr. Shore also proposed for 2014 he receive $18,000 
salary from the Conference, $72,000 from his contract with the 
Conference, and $20,000 from the campaign, with additional compensation 
for media buying relating to the campaign. Id.

          The only issue I'm having is on the reimbursements . 
        . . not for Nov-Jan, but going forward. I want to feel 
        that I can fly out there every month or whenever you 
        want me to lend a hand, but as you know, the flight and 
        several nights at a hotel cost $1500 to $2000. Maybe 
        that can just be built into the contract.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Id.

On January 25, 2013, Mr. Shore emailed Mr. Deutsch again, still 
seeking to resolve his compensation and noting that ``things 
have shifted a little as we discovered that travel 
reimbursements are an issue.''\35\ According to Mr. Shore, he 
was told by the Conference Operations Director that the 
Conference could not reimburse his official travel.\36\ The 
Conference Operations Director told the Committee that the 
Conference was informed by the Committee on House 
Administration (CHA) that the travel for commuting expenses 
from out of state was not reimbursable.\37\ Mr. Shore proposed 
a new approach:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\Exhibit 12.
    \36\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
    \37\18(a) Interview of Conference Operations Director.

          1. Conference employee. I would like to continue at 
        current salary through February; then reduce salary to 
        $1,500 per month. The big payments in January and 
        February serve to reimburse me for the Nov-Jan travel . 
        . .
          2. DATAGRAPHICS contract (attached) This is meant to 
        be the main way I am compensated, with funding through 
        AE1 account. Because of the `use it or lose it' funds 
        in that account ending March 31, I have front-loaded 
        payments of $30,000 in Feb and March.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Exhibit 12.

With respect to Mr. Shore's Conference salary, this proposal 
was similar to what ended up happening: he received large 
payments of $8,833 per month for the first few months, and then 
his salary was reduced to $1,500 a month. He received the 
larger payment amount in March as well as January and February 
of 2013.\39\ When asked by the Committee whether the larger 
payments were intended to reimburse him for travel costs, as 
proposed by his January 25, 2013 email, Mr. Shore said he was 
never reimbursed for travel and the larger payments were 
because he ``did more work.''\40\ The Conference Operations 
Director also told the Committee that she understood the larger 
payments to Mr. Shore in early 2013 to reflect his larger 
workload and not travel reimbursements.\41\ Representative 
Rodgers herself had no involvement in discussions about how or 
whether to reimburse Mr. Shore for his travel costs.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\In a March 19, 2013 email to the Conference employee who 
managed payroll for the office, Mr. Shore asked her to retain his 
salary in March at the same level as January and February ``given the 
difficulties we discussed yesterday.'' Exhibit 13. Mr. Shore told the 
Committee the ``difficulties'' referenced related to delays in payment 
processing and issues with health benefits not working. 18(a) Interview 
of Stan Shore.
    \40\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
    \41\18(a) Interview of Conference Operations Director; see also id. 
(``Q: Do you know if Mr. Shore ultimately was reimbursed for his travel 
costs? A: I had no dealings with the campaign or leadership PAC, so I 
can't speak to that.'').
    \42\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 25, 2013, Mr. Shore emailed Mr. Deutsch again 
regarding his compensation for Conference work:

          I would like to keep coming back to D.C. and helping 
        out the conference. Looking at the calendar, I can be 
        in D.C. 14 to 18 days each month . . . The biggest 
        challenge, as with all of our plans, is to find the 
        money . . . I'm assuming that I can take a retainer 
        from the [campaign committee] and Leadership PAC, as 
        [Political Fundraiser] does, to defray the cost. But as 
        you know, all the official budgets are squeezed past 
        the breaking point.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\Exhibit 14. From 2010 to 2014, the Political Fundraiser 
received payments from both Representative Rodgers' campaign committee 
and her Leadership PAC. The Political Fundraiser told the Committee she 
handles fundraising for both committees. 18(a) Interview of Political 
Fundraiser.

Mr. Shore did subsequently receive payments from both the 
campaign committee and Leadership PAC.\44\ He testified, 
however, that his proposal to use such payments to ``defray the 
cost'' of his Conference work was never put into place.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\Mr. Shore was often paid for his political work through Polis 
Political Services, Inc., a C-corporation owned by him. 18(a) Interview 
of Stan Shore (explaining that Polis and Datagraphics are generally 
interchangeable). According to FEC records, Mr. Shore received his 
first payment from Representative Rodgers' Leadership PAC on July 9, 
2013 ($15,000 with ``fundraising consulting'' as the disbursement 
description), and he continued to receive payments of between $10,000 
and $30,000 from the Leadership PAC every few months through August 
2017. He also regularly received $3,000 payments from the campaign 
committee for ``campaign management'' from February 2013 through March 
2016, and occasionally received additional, much larger payments from 
the campaign committee, such as a $9,930 payment on August 27, 2013 
(also for ``campaign management''). He also received nearly $100,000 
from her joint fundraising committee between June 2014 and October 
2018.
    \45\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While he was working as a Conference employee and vendor, 
Mr. Shore was also working with Representative Rodgers' 
personal congressional office and her political committees. He 
advised on hiring and budgeting for her personal office,\46\ 
continued to serve as a consultant for her re-election 
campaign,\47\ and was also paid by her Leadership PAC for 
consulting services.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant (``For some reason, Mr. 
Shore was involved in the [personal office] budget. I have no idea why, 
and I made my opinions to [the 2013 Member Office Chief of Staff] clear 
that I thought it was very odd, because he wasn't on our payroll.''); 
18(a) Interview of Deputy District Director (district staffer testified 
that Mr. Shore interviewed a potential press secretary in the district 
office in 2013).
    \47\Exhibit 15.
    \48\Exhibit 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              c. July 2013 to present
    In July 2013, after a reporter called with questions 
relating to Mr. Shore's work for the Conference, Mr. Shore 
stopped receiving his salary from the Conference and the 
Conference stopped making payments to Datagraphics for vendor 
services.\49\ According to Mr. Shore, although he and Mr. 
Deutsch thought his dual employment with the Conference and 
campaign was permissible, they decided to stop the payments 
``just to be safe'' and ``to make sure everything was `kosher' 
because of the OCE investigation.''\50\ When Mr. Shore 
interviewed with OCE on October 23, 2013, he testified that he 
was continuing to provide frequent services to the Conference, 
without compensation, and traveling to D.C. from Washington 
State at his own personal expense to do so.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\OCE Referral, Ex. 38.
    \50\Id.
    \51\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Mr. Shore, although there was a concern, in or 
around September 2013, that his work for the Conference ``may 
not be proper,'' a couple of months later he was told that the 
issue was resolved, and he could continue to do work for the 
Conference.\52\ However, he was never added back onto the 
employee payroll. Payments to him from the Conference through 
Datagraphics resumed in December 2013, when he received a 
$12,000 payment for consulting services from October 1, 2013 to 
December 31, 2013.\53\ Representative Rodgers told the 
Committee she was ``not sure'' whether Mr. Shore continued to 
provide services to the Conference after June 2013.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
    \53\Exhibit 17.
    \54\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Shore continued to receive compensation from the 
Conference through Datagraphics until October 2017. The 
payments are reported in House disbursement records under the 
budget code for a ``technology service contract,'' and were 
invoiced by Mr. Shore's firm as fees for ``New Media and Video 
Consulting Services.''\55\ Mr. Shore told the Committee that 
his work for the Conference since being removed from the 
payroll has included consulting on digital strategy, assisting 
with personnel hiring, and assisting with messaging in official 
documents and speeches.\56\ Mr. Shore has also continued to 
serve as a general consultant for Representative Rodgers' 
campaign, as well as providing services to her Leadership PAC 
and joint fundraising committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\Exhibit 17.
    \56\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ii. Speech Consultant
    In or around March 2012, Representative Rodgers hired 
Speech Consultant to serve as her speech coach.\57\ According 
to Speech Consultant, at the time he was hired, he discussed 
the services he would provide with the congresswoman, included 
helping to raise her profile, improve her performance in media 
interviews, assist her official communications staff, and 
``make her official functions better.''\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\Exhibit 18; 18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \58\18(a) Interview of Speech Consultant. See also OCE's Referral, 
Ex. 9. As previously noted, on September 3, 2015, Speech Consultant 
pled guilty to making false statements to OCE in connection with a 
separate investigation; on August 29, 2018, he was sentenced to 
probation and a $10,000 fine. He refused to provide testimony to the 
Committee until after his sentencing. Given Speech Consultant's past 
dishonesty to OCE, the Committee did not rely solely on any of his 
testimony in making its conclusions in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From April 2012 through October 2012, Speech Consultant was 
paid for his services from Representative Rodgers' Leadership 
PAC. Representative Rodgers said that Speech Consultant was 
paid from unofficial funds ``out of an abundance of caution,'' 
as she anticipated a large part of his work would be political 
given that she was very involved in the presidential election 
that year.\59\ During that time, Speech Consultant assisted 
with both official and unofficial communications.\60\ In 
October 2012, he helped Representative Rodgers prepare for 
debates against her general election opponent.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \60\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary; Appendix C at 17.
    \61\Exhibit 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In November and December 2012, Speech Consultant was paid 
from Representative Rodgers' campaign committee funds. The 
Communications Director testified that Speech Consultant ``was 
kind of a de facto press secretary for the Congresswoman'' 
during this time.\62\ Documents reviewed by the Committee 
showed that, in December 2012, Speech Consultant helped 
Representative Rodgers prepare for official media appearances, 
edited official press statements, and helped hire official 
communications staff.\63\ Representative Rodgers' counsel told 
the Committee that Speech Consultant's ``scope of work'' 
changed in December 2012, but disputed that he became ``the de 
facto Press Secretary,'' and said his focus remained on 
assisting the congresswoman with her communication skills.\64\ 
Representative Rodgers' counsel also told the Committee that 
Speech Consultant was paid from the campaign committee rather 
than the Leadership PAC during this time to ``reflect this 
change in scope of work.''\65\ However, Representative Rodgers 
later told the Committee that she believed he was paid from the 
campaign committee because the Leadership PAC ran out of 
money,\66\ which a contemporaneous email also indicates was the 
reason.\67\ Speech Consultant told the Committee that his 
``scope of work'' did not change at any point from when he was 
hired through December 2012, with the exception of the campaign 
work he performed in September and October 2012 relating to 
Representative Rodgers' campaign debate.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\18(a) Interview of Communications Director.
    \63\See Exhibit 20; see also 18(a) Interview of Speech Consultant 
(``I would categorize [the work performed in December 2012] as official 
work'').
    \64\Appendix C at 18.
    \65\Id.
    \66\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \67\Exhibit 21(December 12, 2012 email from Mr. Deutsch to campaign 
treasurer asking him to pay Speech Consultant's invoice, noting that 
Speech Consultant had previously been paid out of the Leadership PAC 
``but now there is no money in the account so reelect needs to pay.'').
    \68\18(a) Interview of Speech Consultant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In January 2013, Speech Consultant entered into a new 
contract with Representative Rodgers (which listed 
Representative Rodgers' congressional office as her 
address).\69\ The contract provided that Speech Consultant 
would render ``consulting services associated with media 
preparation and training/Message design and strategy for Cathy 
McMorris Rodgers and regular service to the House Republican 
Conference'' for $5,000 a month, as well as costs and expenses, 
and an additional $300 an hour for instruction to Conference 
members.\70\ According to House disbursement records, for the 
first several months of 2013, Speech Consultant received half 
of his retainer from the congresswoman's MRA and the other half 
from the Conference.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\Exhibit 22.
    \70\Id.
    \71\Representative Rodgers told the Committee that her personal 
office compensated Speech Consultant because of his help with her 
official speeches and interviews. 18(a) Interview of Representative 
Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Later in 2013, Speech Consultant stopped receiving payments 
from the MRA altogether. He continued to receive some funds 
from the Conference (typically about half of his retainer and 
then additional funds for Conference member training) but began 
to receive the remainder of his retainer from Representative 
Rodgers' Leadership PAC or campaign committee. Representative 
Rodgers told the Committee that Speech Consultant did not help 
with campaign or political communications in 2013.\72\ Speech 
Consultant confirmed this in his interview with the 
Committee.\73\ When asked why Speech Consultant was then paid 
with unofficial funds for a portion of that year, 
Representative Rodgers responded, ``because these [media] 
interviews, sometimes they're political and sometimes they're 
official. So this is to make sure that when it's political, I 
can tell you I paid for it with political funds.''\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\Id.
    \73\18(a) Interview of Speech Consultant.
    \74\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers continued to compensate Speech 
Consultant from both her campaign committee funds and the 
Conference budget until early 2015. She told the Committee she 
``wasn't a part of those discussions or decisions'' regarding 
Speech Consultant's compensation during that time, and that 
those decisions were made by Mr. Deutsch.\75\ Mr. Deutsch told 
the Committee he did not recall discussing Speech Consultant's 
compensation with Representative Rodgers.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\Id. But see id. (Q: ``Did [Mr. Deutsch] tell you during that 
time period how [Speech Consultant] was being paid?'' A: ``I believe we 
discussed it.'').
    \76\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Speech Consultant's compensation history is summarized in 
the following chart:

    PAYMENTS TO SPEECH CONSULTANT FROM OFFICES/ORGANIZATIONS CONTROLLED BY REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS (2012-2015)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2012         2013         2014         2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodgers House Office MRA....................................           --      $10,000           --           --
House Republican Conference.................................           --      $30,600      $27,600       $4,500
Rodgers campaign committee..................................       $4,498      $12,500      $30,000       $4,500
Rodgers leadership PAC......................................      $14,000       $7,500           --           --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2014, Speech Consultant's services to another Member were 
the subject of an OCE investigation, unrelated to 
Representative Rodgers.\77\ The Committee released OCE's Report 
and Findings in that matter on October 29, 2014.\78\ On 
September 3, 2015, Speech Consultant pled guilty in federal 
criminal court to making material false statements to OCE in 
that matter.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\See Statement of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Committee on Ethics Regarding Representative Paul Broun (Oct. 29, 
2014), available at https://ethics.house.gov/press-release/statement-
chairman-and-ranking-member-committee-ethics-regarding-representative-
paul-0.
    \78\Id.
    \79\Plea Agreement, United States v. Brett O'Donnell, No. 15-34 
(M.D.Ga. Sept. 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            iii. Leadership Consultant 
    During the November 2012 race for the Republican Conference 
Chair position, Leadership Consultant offered her advising 
services to Representative Rodgers, working with her staff out 
of the congressional office.\80\ She continued to assist 
Representative Rodgers during the leadership transition and was 
added to the payroll for the congresswoman's personal office as 
an ``Executive Assistant'' during that time, for which she was 
paid $9,250 from the MRA.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\18(a) Interview of Leadership Consultant.
    \81\Id.; Exhibit 23 (Fourth Quarter 2012 House Disbursements from 
Office of Representative Rodgers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2015, Leadership Consultant told the Committee that she 
had been working as a ``consultant with the House Republican 
Conference'' since Representative Rodgers was first elected 
Conference Chair,\82\ and said that she had received the 
``official offer'' to join the Conference staff from Mr. 
Deutsch.\83\ She testified that she worked part-time and ``at 
best'' would come to the office a couple days a week.\84\ 
However, she told the Committee later during her interview that 
she is ``actually more a consultant for Cathy, more than 
anything else, because I do more political consulting stuff. I 
don't do very much official stuff.''\85\ She told the Committee 
she was paid by Representative Rodgers' Leadership PAC and 
campaign committee for that consulting work.\86\ FEC records 
show that she was paid by the Leadership PAC from May 2013 to 
September 2013, and by Representative Rodgers' campaign 
committee from June 2014 to January 2017. Leadership Consultant 
has never received any compensation from the Conference.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\18(a) Interview of Leadership Consultant.
    \83\Id.
    \84\Id. The Conference Operations Director, who worked full-time in 
the Conference from approximately January to August 2013, recalled in a 
2019 interview that Leadership Consultant was involved in setting up 
the Conference office, but did not recall seeing her in the Conference 
offices after the staff had been fully hired, and did not understand 
Leadership Consultant to have been a volunteer for the Conference. 
18(a) Interview of Conference Operations Director.
    \85\18(a) Interview of Leadership Consultant.
    \86\Id.
    \87\Leadership Consultant appears to have listed her occupation as 
``Consultant, House Republican Conference'' on her LinkedIn profile 
from January 2013 to January 2017. Leadership Consultant has also been 
identified in press reports as an ``outside consultant'' who worked 
with Mr. Deutsch on personnel decisions for the Conference. See 
Jonathan Strong, ``A Step Back, a Look in the Mirror, a Team 
Realignment,'' Mar. 9, 2013, Roll Call, available at http://
www.rollcall.com/news/
a_step_back_a_look_in_the_mirror_a_team_realignment-222977-1.html 
(``McMorris Rodgers'' new communications team is roughly twice the size 
of the one in place under Rep. Jeb Hensarling, her predecessor. Hard-
charging chief of staff Jeremy Deutsch led a top-to-bottom staff 
evaluation with outside consultant [Leadership Consultant] that 
resulted in at least one firing.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Leadership Consultant's 2014 contract with the campaign 
committee listed her ``scope of work'' to include offering 
advice on leadership positions, campaign staffing, and 
``budgeting.''\88\ When asked what ``budgeting'' she advised 
Representative Rodgers on, Leadership Consultant said, ``[t]he 
only thing I can think of here is I would . . . give my advice, 
you know, the people I think would be best for CMR within the 
budget of the Conference.''\89\ Representative Rodgers told the 
Committee that she believed Leadership Consultant served as a 
consultant for the Conference in 2013, but that she did not 
understand her to be volunteering her time.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\Exhibit 24 (agreement signed by Leadership Consultant on August 
22, 2014, and effective from July 16, 2014 to December 31, 2014). The 
Committee was not provided with any other contracts for Leadership 
Consultant's services.
    \89\18(a) Interview of Leadership Consultant.
    \90\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Relevant House Rules, Laws, and Other Applicable Standards of 
        Conduct

            i. Unofficial Office Accounts and Volunteer Services
    House Rule XXIV provides that no Member may maintain an 
unofficial office account, or ``defray official expenses for 
mail or other communications, compensation for services, office 
space, office furniture, office equipment, or any associated 
information technology services.''\91\ This restriction is 
similarly codified at 2 U.S.C. Sec. 503(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\See also Ethics Manual at 284-85 (citing Comm. on Standards and 
Official Conduct, Advisory Op. No. 6 (May 9, 1977)) (prohibition on 
unofficial office accounts proscribes the private, in-kind contribution 
of goods or services for official purposes, subject to certain 
exceptions for services from government agencies or through educational 
programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ii. Consultant Services
    Federal law sets forth certain restrictions on the ability 
of House offices to retain consultant services. Title 2 of the 
U.S. Code provides that House committees are permitted, 
contingent on approval from the Committee on House 
Administration (CHA), to procure consultant services for not 
more than one year.\92\ Under Title 2, certain leadership 
offices are also permitted to have consultants on a temporary 
or intermittent basis--specifically, the Speaker, Majority 
Leader, and Minority Leader may each procure one 
consultant.\93\ There is no provision of the law or CHA 
regulations that permits other House leadership offices to 
procure consultant services.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\2 U.S.C. Sec. 4301(i).
    \93\2 U.S.C. Sec. 5102(a).
    \94\Title 2 does authorize the procurement of consultant services 
by the Senate Majority and Minority Leader, the President Pro Tempore 
of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate, the Legislative Counsel of 
the Senate, and the Majority and Minority Conference Committees of the 
Senate. 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 6501, 6157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 4301, CHA also sets limits on the 
extent to which House funds may be used to compensate 
individuals or firms providing consulting or contracting 
services. The Members' Congressional Handbook (Members' 
Handbook) explains, ``only committees are authorized to procure 
the temporary services of consultants. Member offices are not 
authorized to procure consultant services.''\95\ Rather, Member 
offices may only retain ``contractors.'' From at least 2011 to 
2016, the Members' Handbook stated that a Member office:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\Exhibit 25 (hereinafter, Members' Handbook (2011)) (citing 2 
U.S.C. Sec. 72a).

        may contract with firms or individuals only for 
        general, non-legislative and non-financial, office 
        services (e.g., equipment maintenance, systems 
        integration, data entry, staff training, photography, 
        custodial services, web services) for a specified time 
        period not to exceed the Member's current term. Such 
        contracts are reimbursable. Such contractors are not 
        employees of the House and are ineligible for 
        government-provided personnel benefits.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\Id. The current version of the Members' Handbook, adopted on 
July 25, 2018, includes a revised contractor rule stating that general 
office services should be ``outside core office functions.'' See 
https://cha.house.gov/sites/democrats.cha.house.gov/files/documents/
116th_Members_Congresional_Handbook_03-26-2019.pdf. It also includes a 
revised consultant rule, which explicitly prohibits hiring 
speechwriters and communications advisers. See id.

The Members' Handbook also states, ``Members are advised to 
consult the Committee on House Administration when entering 
into such contracts.''\97\ No House entity has published any 
guidance with respect to the use of consultants or contractors 
by leadership offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            iii. Federal Employee Activities in Matters Affecting U.S. 
                    Government Interest
    18 U.S.C. Sec. 203 prohibits federal employees, including a 
Member, officer, or employee of the House, from receiving 
compensation, other than salary, for providing any 
``representational services, agent or attorney or otherwise,'' 
to others, before any department, agency or officer, in 
relation to any contract, claim, or other particular matter in 
which the United States has a direct and substantial 
interest.18 U.S.C. Sec. 205 prohibits any legislative branch 
officer or employee from acting as an agent or attorney for 
anyone other than the employee's self before any department, 
agency or officer in connection with any contract, claim, or 
other particular matter in which the United States has a direct 
and substantial interest. An individual is an ``agent'' within 
the meaning of Section 205 if he has actual and apparent 
authority to act on behalf of the principal.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\See O'Neill v. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev 220 F.3d 1354, 
1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            iv. Official Appropriations
    Federal law requires that appropriations ``shall be applied 
only to the objects for which the appropriations were 
made.''\99\ Regulations from CHA implement that requirement and 
provide that House funds and resources are to be used for 
official House business and may not be used for any unofficial 
purposes. The Members' Handbook states that, ``[o]nly expenses 
the primary purpose of which [is] official and 
representational'' are reimbursable from the MRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            v. Additional House Rules, Laws, and Other Standards of 
                    Conduct
    House Rule XXIII contains the Code of Official Conduct, 
which governs the actions of any Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer or employee of the House. Clause 8, 
states that ``[a] Member . . . of the House may not retain an 
employee who does not perform duties for the offices of the 
employing authority commensurate with the compensation such 
employee receives.'' Clauses 1 and 2, provide that ``[a] Member 
. . . officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all 
times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House,'' 
and ``shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of 
the House.''
    The Code of Ethics for Government Service sets forth 
standards of conduct for all government employees.\100\ Clause 
2 of that Code provides that those in government service should 
``[u]phold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the 
United States and of all governments therein and never be a 
party to their evasion.'' Clause 3 instructs every employee to 
``[g]ive a full day's labor for a full day's pay.'' Clause 7 
provides that employees should ``[e]ngage in no business with 
the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is 
inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his 
governmental duties,'' and Clause 8 prohibits the use of 
information an employee receives ``confidentially in the 
performance of governmental duties as a means for making 
private profit.'' All public servants are charged under the 
Code with upholding the principles articulated, ``ever 
conscious that public office is a public trust.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\See Ethics Manual at 1, 20-21, 355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Analysis

    In both her official and political capacities, 
Representative Rodgers frequently relied on the services of 
three individuals who considered themselves to be consultants: 
Stan Shore, Speech Consultant, and Leadership Consultant. She 
compensated each of these individuals from a mix of official 
and unofficial resources, without establishing clear boundaries 
as to what source of compensation was used for particular 
services. As a result, the Committee found Representative 
Rodgers (1) used official funds to compensate consultants for 
impermissible services and expenses, and (2) received voluntary 
services for official work from consultants and/or compensated 
consultants for official services in whole or in part from 
political funds. As discussed further below, the Committee also 
determined that certain conduct relating to Mr. Shore's 
consulting firm merits further review by the House Inspector 
General.
            i. Representative Rodgers Used Official Funds To Compensate 
                    Consultants for Impermissible Services and Expenses
    The use of consultant services by congressional offices is 
addressed in Title 2 of the U.S. Code, which sets out the laws 
relating to the operation of Congress. Title 2 provides that 
House committees are permitted, contingent on approval from 
CHA, to ``procure the temporary services (not in excess of one 
year) or intermittent services of individual consultants, or 
organizations thereof, to make studies or advise the 
committee.''\101\ The Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority 
Leader of the House are ``each authorized to appoint and fix 
the compensation of one consultant, on a temporary or 
intermittent basis.''\102\ Title 2 also specifies several other 
congressional offices that are permitted to procure consultant 
services, including the Conference of the Majority and 
Conference of the Minority in the Senate.\103\ There is no 
mention, however, of House party caucuses or Member offices 
procuring consultant services. Given that the law clearly 
identifies the select instances where procurement of consultant 
services is permitted for congressional offices, a reasonable 
inference is that procurement of consultant services is not 
permitted for Member offices, the House Republican Conference, 
and the Democratic Caucus.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\2 U.S.C. Sec. 4301(i).
    \102\Id. at Sec. 5102(a).
    \103\2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 6501, 6155, 6157.
    \104\See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002) 
(discussing the well-established canon of statutory interpretation 
expressio unius est exclusion alterius, or expressing one item of an 
associated group excludes another left unmentioned.); see also 
Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 355 U.S. 373, 376 (1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CHA, which is charged under section 5505 of Title 2 with 
approving all payments from applicable accounts of the 
House,\105\ appears to have interpreted the law accordingly, at 
least with respect to Member offices. Citing directly to Title 
2, CHA makes clear in its regulations that ``only committees 
are authorized to procure the temporary services of 
consultants. Member offices are not authorized to procure 
consultant services.''\106\ Rather, Member offices may only 
retain ``contractors'' for general office services.\107\ 
However, no House entity provides any general guidance on 
expenditures by leadership offices.\108\ It is the Committee's 
view that the House community would benefit from more guidance 
as to the use of official funds by leadership offices. 
Nonetheless, the Committee was presented with ample evidence 
that the use of official funds to pay Representative Rodgers' 
consultants at times ran afoul of applicable House rules, CHA 
regulations, federal laws, and other ethical standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\Applicable accounts'' means ``accounts for salaries and 
expenses of committees (other than the Committee on Appropriations), 
the computer support organization of the House of Representatives, and 
allowances and expenses of Members of the House of Representatives, 
officers of the House of Representatives, and administrative and 
support offices of the House of Representatives.'' 2 U.S.C. 
Sec. 5505(b).
    \106\Members' Handbook (2011) at 5; Members' Handbook (2019) at 6.
    \107\Id. See also Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative 
Luis Gutierrez, H. Rept. 115-617, 115th Congress, 2d Session 19-20 
(2018) (Gutierrez).
    \108\The Conference Operations Director noted that CHA would 
provide the Conference guidance on specific questions, but said there 
was less clarity about the rules as to leadership offices than for 
personal member offices. 18(a) Interview of Conference Operations 
Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              a. Mr. Shore Was Paid With Official Funds for 
                    Impermissible Services
    From 2013 to 2017, Mr. Shore provided consulting services 
to the Conference, for which he was paid from an administrative 
account separate from salary expenses. During that time, he 
assisted the Conference with hiring, worked on campaign 
speeches, and helped set Conference and personal office 
budgets. From January to June 2013, Mr. Shore was also a House 
employee, though he continued to perform many of the same 
duties after he was removed from the payroll. Mr. Shore's 
duties, including writing official speeches and advising on 
official hiring and budgeting, went beyond the services that 
outside vendors are intended to provide.
    When asked by the Committee, Mr. Shore could not 
distinguish between the duties he performed as a salaried 
employee and the duties he performed as an outside vendor. 
Without any clear definition of his various roles, the 
potential for violations of the laws, rules, and regulations 
that govern House offices and their appropriated funds was 
heightened. Given the blurring of Mr. Shore's positions, his 
compensation from each of the separate official sources may not 
have been commensurate with the duties he performed.\109\ To 
the extent payments from the ``AE1'' account subsidized Mr. 
Shore's performance of the regular and normal duties of 
official staff, such payments were also inconsistent with the 
restrictions on consulting services articulated by CHA.\110\ 
The need to determine the amount of compensation provided to 
Mr. Shore for his duties as a staffer, versus the compensation 
for his work as a vendor, is not a merely formalistic exercise. 
Pursuant to certain ethics laws and rules, highly compensated 
House employees are subject to additional ethics restrictions, 
including financial disclosure requirements and restrictions on 
outside earned income. Mr. Shore's combined compensation from 
House sources in early 2013 would have put him well above the 
senior staff threshold that triggers financial disclosure 
requirements.\111\ However, his pay was structured so that most 
of his compensation from the House during that time went 
through his consulting firm, allowing him to bypass those 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\See House Rule XXIII, cl. 8 (providing that a Member ``may not 
retain an employee who does not perform duties for the office of the 
employing authority commensurate with the compensation such employee 
receives.'').
    \110\See Committees' Congressional Handbook (2019), available at 
https://cha.house.gov/handbooks/committee-handbook (CHA ``will not 
approve a contract if the services to be provided by the consultant are 
the regular and normal duties of Committee staff.'').
    \111\In 2013, House employees whose basic rate of pay was equal to 
or greater than $9,962.80 per month for at least 60 days were subject 
to the financial disclosure requirements of ``senior staff.'' From 
January to March 2013, Mr. Shore received $8,833 each month as a House 
employee, but also received $6,500 from the Conference for his 
consultant services during January 2013, and $15,000 each month from 
February to March 2013. Accordingly, Mr. Shore received compensation 
above the senior staff rate. The Committee notes that his total House 
compensation for those months was also greater than the maximum salary 
authorized under the Speaker's Pay Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From 2013 to 2017, Mr. Shore's firm received more than 
$250,000 from the House for what was publicly reported to be a 
``technology service contract,'' but there was never an actual 
written, signed contract in place. Although CAO has informed 
the Committee this is permissible under their payment 
standards, the Committee finds it concerning that such a vast 
sum of official funds was transmitted to an outside firm 
without the protections that a signed contract would provide. 
Without a written contract in place, or any effort to 
articulate the boundaries of the work that Mr. Shore's 
compensation was authorized to cover, the potential for misuse 
of official funds was particularly high. The Committee's 
investigation in this matter focused on the conduct of 
Representative Rodgers, and those under her supervision and 
control; broader questions about the administrative process 
governing the disbursement of funds from the official budget 
are beyond the scope of this matter. Further, consideration of 
the performance, accountability, and integrity of House 
financial, administrative, and technology-based operations is 
the stated mission of the House Office of the Inspector General 
(OIG).\112\ Accordingly, the Committee has voted to send a copy 
of this Report and relevant supporting documents to the OIG 
with a recommendation that the OIG: review the institutional 
processes, procedures, and controls under which Mr. Shore's 
firm was compensated for the provision of vaguely defined 
services without a contract for over five years, as well as any 
further issues arising out of those processes, procedures, and 
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\Inspector General of the House, https://www.house.gov/the-
house-explained/officers-and-organizations/inspector-general 
(explaining that the mission of the House Inspector General is ``to 
provide recommendations for improving the performance, accountability, 
and integrity of House financial, administrative, and technology-based 
operations.'') (last visited Nov. 22, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              b. Representative Rodgers reimbursed Mr. Shore for living 
                    and commuting expenses through increased salary 
                    payments
    The Committee also found Mr. Shore may have been improperly 
compensated through his House salary for his travel expenses.
    Although officially-connected travel is generally 
reimbursable from official funds, under CHA regulations, 
``living and commuting expenses'' are not reimbursable except 
in extraordinary circumstances, with written authorization from 
CHA.\113\ While CHA does not explicitly provide this guidance 
to leadership offices, the Committee found that Representative 
Rodgers' Conference staff was generally aware of the 
restriction and understood it to apply to the Conference 
office. The precept that appropriated funds cannot be used to 
pay for the costs of employees commuting to their duty station 
is fundamental across the federal government.\114\ If 
leadership office employees could use official funds to pay for 
their commuting expenses, there would be no basis on which to 
restrict Members themselves from using leadership funds for 
such expenses--such as lodging in Washington, D.C., which 
Members have long acknowledged they are prohibited from paying 
with official funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\CHA rules provide that this restriction applies to Member 
offices as well as committees and eligible congressional member 
organizations. Members' Handbook (2011); Committees' Handbook (2011); 
Eligible Congressional Member Organizations Handbook (2011). ``Living 
expenses'' is defined to include ``meals, housing, and other personal 
expenses incurred at the Member's or employee's residence or duty 
station,'' and ``commuting expenses'' is defined to include 
``transportation expenses incurred by the Member or employee while 
commuting between their residence and duty station.'' Members' Handbook 
(2011) at 27.
    \114\See, e.g., General Accountability Office, Principles of 
Federal Appropriations Law, at 3-33 (4th ed. 2017) (citing 31 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1344(a)(1)) (``[E]mployees must bear the costs of commuting to and 
from their official duty stations each day.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Official funds may also not be used to reimburse expenses 
for travel the primary purpose of which is campaign-
related.\115\ Even where the primary purpose of a trip is 
official, additional travel costs incurred for a campaign 
purpose, such as additional nights of hotel lodging to attend 
campaign meetings or events, must be paid for with campaign 
funds.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\Ethics Manual at 131.
    \116\Id. at 116 (``Any additional meal, lodging, or other travel 
expenses that the Member or staff person incurs in serving a secondary 
purpose must be paid by the source associated with that secondary 
purpose.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The use of salary payments to reimburse transportation 
expenses also implicates House Rule 23, clause 8, which 
provides that employees' compensation must be commensurate with 
the duties they perform. The Committee previously found a 
violation of this rule where a Member used salary increases to 
pay for staff's personal travel expenses.\117\ In The Matter of 
Representative Barbara Rose-Collins, the Committee found that 
the Member awarded raises to some of her congressional staff to 
enable them to accompany her on a trip to Africa. Although the 
travel in that matter was personal in nature, the crux of the 
violation was that the salary payments were not tied to staff's 
performance of their official duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of 
Representative Barbara Rose-Collins, H. Rept. 104-876, 104th Cong., 2d 
Sess. 87 (1997) (Barbara Rose-Collins).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Emails reviewed by the Committee indicate Mr. Shore may 
have received payments in January and February 2013 in part to 
reimburse him for travel expenses he incurred in November, 
December and January.\118\ These substantial travel expenses 
accrued in part as a result of Mr. Shore's residence on the 
opposite side of the country from his ``duty station'' at the 
Conference. To some extent, these expenses also related to Mr. 
Shore's travel to Washington, D.C., in his role as 
Representative Rodgers' general campaign consultant. Mr. Shore 
initially proposed that Representative Rodgers' leadership PAC 
or campaign committee reimburse the cost of his flights, hotels 
and meals from his travel to Washington, D.C. in November and 
December 2012.\119\ Mr. Shore testified that the purpose of 
that travel was in part to assist with ``campaign 
reorganization,'' and in part to assist with the leadership 
transition.\120\ He was never reimbursed from the political 
committees for that travel.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\See Exhibit 12; Exhibit 11.
    \119\Exhibit 4.
    \120\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
    \121\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Shore proposed in late January 2013 that he ``continue 
at current salary through February; then reduce salary to 
$1,500 per month. The big payments in January and February 
serve to reimburse me for the Nov-Jan travel.''\122\ Mr. 
Shore's salary in January and February 2013 was $8,833, and was 
later reduced to $1,500 per month in April 2013. Mr. Shore also 
received $8,833 in March 2013, although the Committee was 
unable to ascertain whether the larger payment that month was 
also intended to reimburse travel costs.\123\ For at least 
January and February 2013, however, at least some portion of 
Mr. Shore's salary was intended to serve as travel cost 
reimbursements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \122\Exhibit 12.
    \123\On March 19, 2012, Mr. Shore requested of the Conference 
administrative staff, ``given the difficulties we discussed yesterday, 
could you please retain my salary in March for payment at end of 
March[,] at the same level as January and February? [T]his seems a 
certain path and we can make other adjustments later as needed.'' 
Exhibit 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Shore told the Committee he was never reimbursed for 
travel after the Conference learned it was not a permissible 
use of House funds.\124\ He said he was paid larger amounts in 
January and February because he was doing a greater amount of 
work, which happened to align with his initial proposal to be 
paid a larger salary to reimburse him for travel. The 
Conference Operations Director confirmed that he did more work 
in the earlier months. However, the Committee did not find Mr. 
Shore's assertion that he abandoned his plan for reimbursement 
through salary to be credible. Mr. Shore's January 25, 2013 
email stated that his current salary was to reimburse him for 
travel expenses, not for the duties he performed. The email 
makes clear that the plan to use a higher salary to circumvent 
the restrictions on reimbursing Mr. Shore's travel funds had 
already been implemented. The Committee also found reason to 
believe, based on Mr. Shore's own testimony, that at least some 
of those travel expenses were incurred in connection with Mr. 
Shore's campaign work.\125\ The Committee therefore found that 
Mr. Shore was impermissibly reimbursed for his living or 
commuting expenses and/or campaign-related travel costs. 
However, the Committee did not find evidence that 
Representative Rodgers was aware or had reason to be aware of 
this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\18(a) Interview of Stan Shore.
    \125\See supra note 20 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              c. Mr. Shore Represented his Consulting Firm in 
                    Connection with Government Contracts While a House 
                    Employee
    Mr. Shore is the sole owner of his consulting firm, 
Datagraphics, and was the firm's agent for purposes of 
contracting with the House.\126\ During the six months for 
which he was a House employee, Mr. Shore was actively involved 
in negotiating the Datagraphics contract with the House 
Conference and regularly invoiced the House for the services he 
provided to the Conference through Datagraphics.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\See O'Neill, 220 F.3d at 1360-61.
    \127\Exhibit 12; Exhibit 11; Exhibit 7; Exhibit 6. During this 
time, Mr. Shore also contracted with another Member for services 
categorized as ``printing and reproduction'' in House disbursement 
records. He was compensated $8,853.60 from that Member's MRA on 
February 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal laws restrict House employees from acting as an 
agent or representative of a party in a contract or other 
matter in which the federal government is a party.\128\ As the 
Ethics Manual cautions, 18 U.S.C. 203 and 205 generally 
prohibit House employees from privately representing others 
before the federal government.\129\ Although the Department of 
Justice has interpreted these statutes to allow an exemption 
for an employee's representation of himself before the 
government, it is not clear that such an exemption would extend 
to the representation of a distinct legal entity owned by that 
employee, including an LLC such as Datagraphics.\130\ 
Furthermore, the Code of Official Conduct provides that House 
employees may not permit compensation to accrue to their 
beneficial interest ``by virtue of influence improperly exerted 
from the position of such individual in Congress.''\131\ House 
Members and employees are also charged with adhering to the 
``spirit,'' in addition to the ``letter'' of the rules.\132\ 
Mr. Shore's dual arrangement with the Conference was 
unambiguously contrary to the spirit of the House's conflict of 
interest rules and laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 203, 205; see also Ethics Manual at 198-
200.
    \129\Ethics Manual at 185.
    \130\See Office of Gov't Ethics, Informal Adv. Op. 85 x 12 (Aug. 
29, 1985).
    \131\House Rule XXIII, cl. 3.
    \132\House Rule XXIII, cl. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Shore is no longer a House employee or contractor and 
is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Committee. The 
Committee notes, however, that Representative Rodgers could 
have done more to prevent these violations from occurring. 
Although Members are free to delegate various duties relating 
to their office structure and budget to their staffers, they 
must do so responsibly and remain accountable for the 
consequences. Representative Rodgers' delegation decisions left 
the House deprived of the arms-length dealing and fair 
competition that the laws and rules discussed above are 
intended to preserve.
            ii. Representative Rodgers Received Official Services from 
                    Consultants that were Voluntary or Compensated from 
                    Political Funds.
    House Rule XXIV provides that Members may not maintain ``an 
unofficial office account,'' and may not use unofficial funds 
``to defray official expenses for mail or other communications, 
compensation for services, office space, office furniture, 
office equipment, or any associated information technology 
services.'' The Committee has interpreted this rule to provide 
that ``outside private donations, funds, or in-kind foods or 
services may not be used to support the activities of, or pay 
the expenses of, a congressional office.''\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\Ethics Manual at 326; see also House Select Comm. on Ethics, 
Advisory Opinion No. 6 (May 9, 1977), reprinted in Final Report of the 
Select Committee on Ethics, H. Rep. 95-1837, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. app. 
at 65 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has previously relied on the language of Rule 
XXIV to support its finding that ``the regular involvement of a 
volunteer/political advisor in a congressional office who 
performs tasks properly associated with the official 
responsibilities of House Members is inappropriate.''\134\ 
Congressional offices may accept the services of a volunteer 
only where there is a clearly defined program to assure that 
the volunteer receives a significant education a benefit, and 
the volunteer services do not supplant the normal and regular 
duties of paid employees.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of 
Representative Bud Shuster, H. Rept. 106-979, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. 44 
(2000) (Shuster). See also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, 
Inquiry into Various Complaints Filed Against Representative Newt 
Gingrich, H. Rpt. 104-401, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1995) (Gingrich).
    \135\Ethics Manual at 288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee found that Representative Rodgers likely 
accepted official services from all three consultants that were 
defrayed with political funds or not compensated at all, in 
violation of Rule XXIV.
    Mr. Shore testified that he ``volunteered'' for the 
Conference first in November 2012, immediately after 
Representative Rodgers was elected Conference Chair, and again 
from July to September 2013, after he was removed from the 
Conference payroll. During that time, he was also receiving 
payment from Representative Rodgers' political committees. 
Whether Mr. Shore's services to the Conference during that time 
were entirely uncompensated, volunteer services, or whether 
they were covered by the compensation he received from 
political funds, Mr. Shore provided Representative Rodgers' 
congressional office with services for approximately three 
months that were not paid for with official funds. There is 
also some evidence that political funds may have been used to 
defray his compensation earlier in 2013, when he was serving as 
both an employee and vendor to the Conference.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\Exhibit 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Speech Consultant was paid entirely with political funds in 
2012, when part of his services to Representative Rodgers 
included working with her official communications team on media 
relations. While he was paid with official funds for the first 
three months of 2013, when he began providing services to the 
Conference, he was paid with political funds, despite 
Representative Rodgers' acknowledgement that his services were 
entirely related to her official duties.
    Finally, Leadership Consultant was paid only with political 
funds the entire time she served as a consultant to the House 
Republican Conference. The services she provided the Conference 
were either voluntary or paid for by those political funds. As 
discussed above, the Committee found evidence indicating the 
latter to be the case: Leadership Consultant's 2014 contract 
with Representative Rodgers' campaign includes the provision of 
budgeting services, which she told the Committee were services 
she provided to the Conference. Accordingly, the expenses for 
services provided by Leadership Consultant to the Conference 
appear to have been defrayed with political funds.
    Because Mr. Shore, Speech Consultant and Leadership 
Consultant provided official services that were not compensated 
with official funds, the Committee found Representative Rodgers 
effectively maintained unofficial office accounts in violation 
of House Rule XXIV.

B. ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO USE OF OFFICIAL RESOURCES FOR POLITICAL AND 
                          CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES

    From at least 2008 through 2013, when OCE began its 
investigation, several members of Representative Rodgers' 
official staff were heavily involved with her campaigns and 
other political endeavors. At least some members of her 
official staff, including Mr. Deutsch, continued to have 
substantial involvement with her campaign and political efforts 
after the start of the OCE investigation in August 2013. As 
discussed further below, applicable House rules and laws permit 
congressional staff to voluntarily assist with political 
activities, provided they do not do so using official 
resources. The Committee examined allegations that 
Representative Rodgers, and others acting under her supervision 
and control, used various types of official resources, 
including staff time, congressional office space, travel funds, 
and other resources, for campaign and political activities. As 
part of that examination, the Committee looked at the policies 
and safeguards implemented by the congresswoman relating to the 
use of official resources for political work.

1. Background

            i. Policies regarding political work by official staff
    Representative Rodgers asserted that the policies in her 
offices regarding campaign work were clearly communicated to 
staff in writing.\137\ When hired, all staff were provided with 
an Employee Handbook detailing the office policies, including 
policies relating to official staff participating in political 
activities.\138\ Staff were required to sign and submit a form 
acknowledging they received the Employee Handbook, and had read 
and understood its contents.\139\ Representative Rodgers 
provided the Committee with only one other document discussing 
the office policies on campaign work: a training document dated 
July 2009.\140\ The language in the different iterations of the 
Employee Handbook used in Representative Rodgers' member and 
Conference offices with respect to staff leave and political 
work has shifted over time, but at all times her written 
policies have included some form of the statement that campaign 
work can only be performed by official staff on their ``own 
time.''\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\OCE's Referral, Ex. 4 (Memorandum of Interview for 
Representative Rodgers); 18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \138\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \139\See, e.g., Exhibit 26.
    \140\Exhibit 27. Representative Rodgers told the Committee that, to 
her knowledge, her policies concerning campaign work by staff were not 
in writing anywhere other than the Employee Handbooks and the July 2009 
training document. 18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers. 
Representative Rodgers said her policies were also communicated at 
annual staff retreats, during presentations lasting for about 30-60 
minutes. Id. Her staff were also expected, as are all House staff, to 
complete the annual ethics training provided by the Committee.
    \141\Exhibit 26 (Employee Handbook for the Office of Representative 
Rodgers effective August 17, 2010); Exhibit 28 (Employee Handbook for 
the Office of Representative Rodgers effective June 1, 2011); Exhibit 
29 (Employee Handbook for ``Team CMR,'' applicable to employees of the 
House Republican Conference and the Office of Representative Rodgers, 
effective January 28, 2015). No other versions of the Employee Handbook 
for Representative Rodgers' offices were provided to the Committee. The 
July 2009 training document defined an employee's ``own time'' as 
``your lunch hour, after-work hours, and time you are on leave status 
as set forth in our Employee Handbook.'' Exhibit 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these written policies, the Committee was not able 
to determine what office rules were actually implemented in 
Representative Rodgers' offices. The 2009 training document 
stated that official staff working on the campaign ``must keep 
a detailed, written, contemporaneous diary recording each 
segment of time you spend on official duties and each segment 
of time you spend on campaign activities.''\142\ In at least 
2010 and 2011, the Employee Handbook provided that 
``[e]mployees of the Office may engage in campaign work only on 
their own time, and only when their Campaign Work Authorization 
Form . . . has been pre-approved by the Chief of Staff in 
writing.''\143\ However, the Committee did not find any record 
of any official staffer following either of these policies for 
work done on Representative Rodgers' campaign.\144\ The staff 
interviewed by the Committee said they never maintained these 
records, and some who worked for the congresswoman in 2009, 
2010 or 2011 were completely unfamiliar with these 
policies.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\Exhibit 27.
    \143\Exhibit 26; Exhibit 28.
    \144\There was one instance where a staffer completed a Campaign 
Work Authorization Form to volunteer with a Senate campaign. Exhibit 
30. At least some staffers understood this form to only be required 
when working on a campaign other than the congresswoman's. 18(a) 
Interview of Policy Advisor; 18(a) Interview of New Media Director. But 
see 18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers (``Q: [D]oes the 
reference to campaign work there include work for your campaign? A: I 
believe so.''); OCE's Referral, Ex. 5 (In Mr. Deutsch's OCE interview, 
``the witness stated that the form was required to be completed if a 
staff member wanted to work on any campaign,'' unless the staff member 
filled out a separate ``vacation'' leave form.).
    \145\18(a) Interview of 2010 Staffer; 18(a) Interview of 2008-2009 
Press Secretary; 18(a) Interview of Policy Advisor; 18(a) Interview of 
Deputy District Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, the Committee received conflicting evidence 
about the actual office policies regarding unofficial work 
during office hours. The various iterations of the Employee 
Handbook from 2010 through 2015 were largely consistent, 
setting office hours from 8:30 a.m. or 8:45 a.m. to between 
5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.\146\ Prior to the 2015 Employee 
Handbook, which provides that lunch periods are established by 
each employee's supervisor, the written policy stated that 
employees had one hour for lunch.\147\ The Handbooks also noted 
the right of the office to unilaterally change or revise its 
policies or practices, and gave Mr. Deutsch and other 
supervisors discretion with respect to certain attendance 
requirements.\148\ At times, Mr. Deutsch could be strict about 
office hours, sometimes penalizing staff for being 15 minutes 
late.\149\ He considered a two-hour lunch period to be 
inappropriate and on at least one occasion scolded an employee 
for taking a longer lunch.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\Exhibit 26; Exhibit 28; Exhibit 29. Prior to the 2015 Employee 
Handbook, which provides that lunch periods are established by each 
employee's supervisor, the written policy stated that employees had one 
hour for lunch.
    \147\Id.
    \148\Id.
    \149\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of Press 
Secretary.
    \150\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, staffers testified that there were some instances 
in which the office's practices with respect to time and 
attendance were flexible. For example, two staffers who 
suffered personal family tragedies during their time in the 
office indicated that the office was accommodating and flexible 
about their work arrangements during their bereavement.\151\ 
Mr. Deutsch's strict enforcement of office hours also did not 
appear to extend to absences for political work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\See 18(a) Interview of Press Secretary; 18(a) Interview of New 
Media Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers and Mr. Deutsch testified that staff 
were permitted to make up time spent on unofficial tasks during 
office hours by working later at other times.\152\ 
Representative Rodgers told the Committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \152\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of 
Representative Rodgers.

          I understood that these are not typical 9 to 5 jobs. 
        I understood that my staff is working a variety of 
        hours, depending upon the day, depending upon the week. 
        My staff works weekdays and weekends. And my 
        understanding would be that as long as they could 
        document when they were doing the campaign activities 
        versus when they were doing the official time, that 
        there was flexibility involved.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \153\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers. When asked if this 
was still her understanding, Representative Rodgers said that, since 
OCE's investigation, she has been ``under the impression now that 
basically 8:30 to 5:30 they shouldn't be doing any campaign work unless 
they take leave.'' Id.

Representative Rodgers also said she expected staff were 
``doing their 40 hours of congressional time,'' but added, ``I 
don't know that I've ever said that out loud to them 
though.''\154\ This policy of general flexibility was not 
included in Representative Rodgers' written policies.\155\ 
Several staffers told the Committee they understood the office 
hours to be flexible.\156\ However, Representative Rodgers and 
Mr. Deutsch also testified that, on at least some occasions, 
they believed staff should take leave when they performed 
campaign work during office hours.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\Id.
    \155\The Employee Handbooks in effect from 2010 to 2014 are 
generally based on the Model Handbook produced by CHA and included 
standard disclaimers that the policies were subject to modification by 
the office supervisors at any time. Exhibit 26; Exhibit 28. Those 
handbooks also included a detailed ``discretionary time off'' policy by 
which employees who performed more than three hours of official work on 
weekends or holidays could receive up to two days per month of time off 
during the work week, after filling out specific forms. Id. After OCE's 
investigation began, the office adopted a new handbook that explicitly 
noted that exceptions to the office hours policy ``may be made at the 
discretion of the Congresswoman, the appropriate Senior Manager . . ., 
or their designee.'' Exhibit 29.
    \156\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary; 18(a) Interview of Policy 
Advisor; 18(a) Interview of District Director.
    \157\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of 
Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In several instances in which official staff spent a full 
day during the work week participating in campaign or political 
activities, those staffers told the Committee they recalled 
submitting a request to use annual leave. In nearly all of 
those instances, there is no record of staff requesting leave, 
or of any leave being deducted from their allotted annual leave 
on those days. For example, in August 2012, five members of 
Representative Rodgers' official staff attended the Republican 
National Convention for several days in Tampa, Florida, and 
four of them insisted that they had requested leave for that 
trip.\158\ However, there are no records of leave being taken 
for any of those staff members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \158\18(a) Interview of Legislative Director; 18(a) Interview of 
Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of New Media Director; 18(a) Interview 
of Press Secretary. Representative Rodgers' Communications Director 
testified that he did not submit a request for leave for that time. 
18(a) Interview of Communications Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee was unable to determine whether the leave 
records were lost or never filled out. Although Mr. Deutsch and 
Representative Rodgers suggested that some leave forms may have 
been lost when the congresswoman moved her D.C. office,\159\ 
leave forms were processed through a staff assistant based in 
the district office.\160\ The district office Staff Assistant 
told the Committee that the D.C. office frequently failed to 
send her leave request forms for staff and as a result, the 
leave was not processed and some staff had higher leave 
balances than they should have.\161\ The Staff Assistant said 
she alerted her supervisor to this issue, but nothing came of 
it.\162\ In total, Representative Rodgers provided the 
Committee with records of only a small handful of instances of 
staff taking leave for a full day that appear to be related to 
work for her campaign.\163\ Most of those instances occurred 
after OCE's review began.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \159\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; 18(a) Interview of 
Representative Rodgers.
    \160\Exhibit 28 (Employee Handbook stated that the district office 
Staff Assistant is responsible for maintaining time and attendance 
records, which the D.C. office is to send on at least a weekly basis); 
18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant (confirming that the general 
procedure was for her to receive all leave forms in the district 
office, which she would input into an electronic system).
    \161\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant.
    \162\Id; see also 18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch (Mr. Deutsch 
testified that leave forms were not always sent to the district and 
acknowledged that he may have failed to submit forms for his own 
requested leave at times).
    \163\Exhibit 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As discussed further below, the Committee reviewed evidence 
indicating that, despite having written policies relating to 
staff performance of campaign work that went beyond what the 
ethics rules require, staff regularly made use of official 
resources for campaign purposes. Several staffers acknowledged 
to the Committee that they performed campaign work not on their 
``own time,'' but when they were otherwise expected to be 
performing their official duties.
    Despite the apparent inconsistencies between some of the 
written office policies and the actual office practice, 
Representative Rodgers said she was never ``suspicious of 
anything,'' and thought all of her staff took leave when 
appropriate and did not work on campaign activities in the 
office.\164\ Representative Rodgers acknowledged that, in 
retrospect, her staff was not following the office policies 
``to the degree they should have,'' but said that at the time, 
she trusted they were doing as the Employee Handbook laid 
out.\165\ When asked whether she could think of any instances 
where she herself discussed with staffers what they could or 
could not do with respect to campaign work while in the office 
or while on official time, Representative Rodgers could only 
recall one instance, in which she reminded staff how to handle 
a campaign check that came into her official office.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \164\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \165\Id.
    \166\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ii. Political Communications
    From at least 2008 to 2013, the official communications 
staff in Representative Rodgers' office performed a substantial 
amount of political communications work. The Committee found 
that a portion of the staff's political communications work 
occurred while on official time, including while in House 
office buildings, using House office equipment.
    There were several instances where the Communications 
Director,\167\ Press Secretary and New Media Director worked on 
campaign press communications in the congressional office, 
during office hours. These instances went beyond answering 
incidental campaign-related questions from reporters and 
included hours spent drafting press releases, preparing lengthy 
brochures, and arranging interviews on behalf of the 
campaign.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\During the Committee's investigation, several staffers 
confirmed that there were serious concerns about the Communications 
Director's general behavior in the workplace. The Communications 
Director's employment was terminated in early 2013, and his separation 
from the office was not entirely amicable. Although this does not 
nullify the credibility of his testimony, the Committee notes that none 
of its conclusions are based solely on representations by the 
Communications Director.
    \168\See, e.g., Exhibits 32-44. See also 18(a) Interview of 2008-
2009 Press Secretary (testimony by former press secretary that he 
handled campaign press inquiries and generally did not differentiate 
between campaign and official requests when determining when or where 
to work on them).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers' congressional staff also assisted 
in drafting her speeches for campaign and political events. The 
staffer who served as Press Secretary from 2008 to 2009 told 
the Committee he viewed working on campaign communications as 
part of his job, noting that there was no one on campaign staff 
doing a parallel job.\169\ Throughout the time he worked for 
Representative Rodgers, the Communications Director drafted 
speeches for at least a dozen campaign and political events, 
including the Republican National Convention, state Republican 
Party events, and various fundraisers.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \169\18(a) Interview of 2008-2009 Press Secretary.
    \170\Exhibits 45-57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From 2010 to 2012, the Communications Director said he 
prepared campaign and political speeches in the congressional 
office, on his government computer. The Communications Director 
sent drafts of most of the unofficial speeches he worked on to 
Mr. Deutsch during office hours,\171\ and testified that he met 
with the congresswoman during his work day about campaign 
speeches.\172\ Representative Rodgers told the Committee she 
remembered having a conversation with the Communications 
Director about a campaign speech in the congressional office on 
one occasion.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \171\See Exhibits 45-46, 48-50, 53-55, and 57. The Communications 
Director testified that Mr. Deutsch observed him writing speeches in 
the office during office hours, and Mr. Deutsch discussed those 
speeches with him in the office. 18(a) Interview of Communications 
Director.
    \172\18(a) Interview of Communications Director.
    \173\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March 2013, after becoming Conference Chair, 
Representative Rodgers gave political speeches at the 
Dorchester Conference, a political event in Oregon, and the 
Conservative Political Action Conference (known as ``CPAC'') in 
Maryland. In the weeks prior to the events, Representative 
Rodgers' office scheduled meetings for the congresswoman to 
work on the speeches with members of both her official and 
campaign staff, in the congressional office.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \174\At least two one-hour drafting sessions for the Dorchester 
speech were scheduled in Representative Rodgers' congressional office. 
Exhibit 58. There were also four different speech preparation sessions 
scheduled the week prior to CPAC. Exhibit 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The speeches themselves included a substantial amount of 
overlapping language. A portion of both speeches included 
discussion of her efforts through the Conference to use more 
technology for messaging, and the CPAC speech briefly touched 
on some policy issues, but both speeches focused on unofficial, 
political topics. The Dorchester speech included lines such as, 
``Eighteen percent more women voted for Obama than Romney. It 
doesn't have to be that way. Let's not forget: In 2010 we won 
the women's vote . . . There's no reason we can't win the 
women's vote again in 2014, in 2016 and in the years 
ahead.''\175\ The CPAC speech included discussion of the 
women's vote in the 2012 election, conservative women running 
for office, and ways Republicans can ``win elections in the 
future.''\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \175\Exhibit 60.
    \176\Exhibit 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers told the Committee the speech 
drafting sessions occurred in the congressional office because 
``when you look at the speech itself, it's really about our 
work, my work here in the House, and as Chair of the Republican 
Conference. And I never thought about [the Dorchester speech] 
being a political speech, even though it was a political 
event.''\177\ She also said that she ``didn't discuss at the 
time whether [CPAC] was a political or official event. I 
honestly thought, to a certain degree, I was going there in an 
official capacity.''\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \177\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \178\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers' Press Secretary helped draft the 
remarks for the speeches. The Press Secretary told the 
Committee that she also understood CPAC to be an official 
speech.\179\ However, shortly before the speech, the Press 
Secretary appeared to recognize there were restrictions on 
using official resources in connection with the speech. She 
asked Mr. Shore, to send out a press release after the speech 
from the campaign, ``[s]ince we can't send the substance of 
CMR's speech out [in] an official capacity (since it has to do 
with the election, etc.).''\180\ When asked why she asked the 
campaign to send out the release if she thought it was an 
official speech, the Press Secretary said, ``I guess I was 
simply being careful.''\181\ Representative Rodgers' political 
fundraising team was also involved with her CPAC speech, 
including assisting with the language of the speech and 
discussing online promotion of the speech; the Political 
Fundraiser was also directed to help the congresswoman practice 
the speech.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \179\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary.
    \180\Exhibit 62; see also Exhibit 63.
    \181\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary.
    \182\Exhibit 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            iii. Debate Preparation
    Official staff helped prepare Representative Rodgers to 
debate her campaign opponents in 2008, 2010, and 2012.
    The congresswoman's 2008-2009 Press Secretary told the 
Committee he participated in debate preparation, and 
specifically recalled working on an ``extensive'' debate packet 
in 2008, which ``took a lot of time,'' at the official 
office.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \183\Interview of 2008-2009 Press Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2010, Representative Rodgers' Press Secretary, New Media 
Director, and Communications Director compiled a 50-page packet 
with a mix of content created specifically to prepare for the 
debate and materials initially created for internal official 
use.\184\ Representative Rodgers said she saw this work as 
something staff did on their own time.\185\ However, official 
staff sent her substantial work product for debate preparation 
during office hours.\186\ When asked whether it occurred to her 
that staff may have been working on this from the office, she 
said it did not.\187\ Representative Rodgers said she expected 
staff to take leave to work on these materials, but she never 
had any discussions with them about whether they were taking 
leave, or any discussions about not using official resources 
for the work.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \184\Exhibits 65-69.
    \185\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \186\Exhibit 67; Exhibit 68.
    \187\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \188\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee found that Representative Rodgers' staff, 
including Mr. Deutsch, the Communications Director, the Press 
Secretary, the Legislative Director, and the New Media 
Director, spent substantial time working on debate preparation 
in the fall of 2012. From September 24, 2012 through October 
12, 2012, Representative Rodgers scheduled at least five debate 
preparation sessions, many of them during office hours.\189\ 
The congresswoman told the Committee she expected staff to take 
leave for 2012 debate preparation, but there is no record of 
any of them doing so.\190\ She did not have any discussions 
with staff about ensuring official time or other resources were 
not used for the debate.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \189\Exhibit 70.
    \190\Id.
    \191\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers has acknowledged one of the debate 
preparation sessions, which occurred on Sunday, October 7, 
2012, took place in her congressional office.\192\ 
Representative Rodgers has expressed regret this occurred,\193\ 
but she and her staffers have also offered contradictory 
explanations for why it occurred. The congresswoman told the 
Committee and OCE the meeting was intended to occur at her 
house, but her home was noisy with children, and so it was 
moved to the congressional office.\194\ In her interview with 
the Committee, she characterized this as a spur-of-the-moment 
decision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \192\Another debate preparation session may have been held in the 
congressional office on Friday, October 5, 2012. Exhibit 70; Exhibit 
71. Mr. Deutsch told the Committee he did not recall the session 
scheduled to occur in the congressional office that day, and believed 
it was moved to Sunday. 18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch. However, 
records show that, while it was delayed, the session still happened on 
that day. Exhibit 71.
    \193\Appendix C at 3.
    \194\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers; OCE Referral, Ex. 
4.

          Q: How far in advance did you plan to hold the debate 
        prep session in the congressional office?
          A: It was just in the moment. Because we came back to 
        the office after the Sunday show. And we were going 
        over some other things. There had been a change in the 
        plan at my house, and so we just decided to stay 
        there.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \195\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.

Mr. Deutsch also said they had been planning to do the debate 
preparation session at the congresswoman's home, but the plan 
changed just prior.\196\ The Legislative Director said the 
decision to move the weekend debate session to the office was 
made because several staffers were already working in the 
office, which led to an impromptu staff meeting the 
congresswoman joined, which then ``floated'' to a discussion 
about the debates.\197\ In contrast to all of these after-the-
fact explanations, a contemporaneous document indicates the 
session was scheduled to occur in the congressional office at 
least two days prior to when it took place. On Friday, October 
5, 2012, the Communications Director emailed Speech Consultant, 
who assisted with debate preparation, stating, ``[o]n Sunday, 
we will be in CMR's office (2412 Rayburn) at 3:30 p.m.''\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \196\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
    \197\18(a) Interview of Legislative Director.
    \198\Exhibit 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers suggested that debate preparation 
may have been sufficiently official to permit the use of 
official resources, because it involved a review of her 
legislative record.\199\ However, Representative Rodgers also 
devoted campaign resources to her debate preparation. Mr. 
Shore, her general campaign consultant, was included on almost 
all communications regarding debate preparation, and the 
Political Fundraiser helped arrange at least some of the debate 
preparation sessions.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \199\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \200\See Exhibit 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            iv. Travel for Political Purposes
    The Committee also reviewed evidence relating to trips for 
which Representative Rodgers and her staff used official 
resources. In some instances, the Committee found official 
resources were used for trips with a campaign or other 
political purpose. Several of the trips reviewed by the 
Committee involved both official and political activities; in 
those instances, the Committee considered whether the primary 
purpose of the trip was official.
              a. Official Staff Booked Political Travel
    Representative Rodgers' Staff Assistants in both her 
Washington, D.C. office and her Spokane district office booked 
campaign and other political travel for the congresswoman and 
some of the official staff. One D.C.-based Staff Assistant said 
she would book travel for Representative Rodgers during her 
workday, regardless of whether the trip was campaign or 
official.\201\ She relied on Mr. Deutsch to tell her whether 
travel should be paid for with the campaign credit card or with 
official funds.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \201\18(a) Interview of D.C. Staff Assistant.
    \202\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Deutsch confirmed the D.C. Staff Assistant would also 
book political travel, but said he expected the D.C. Staff 
Assistant to do so on her lunch break or after work.\203\ 
However, records reviewed by the Committee indicate he had 
reason to suspect she may have been using official resources to 
book campaign or political travel, as she would respond to his 
requests regarding political travel during office hours, when 
she was likely to be in the office.\204\ Another Staff 
Assistant for Representative Rodgers also said she booked 
campaign travel during her work hours, and noted she thought it 
was ``unethical'' for her to do so.\205\ She told the Committee 
she objected to her supervisors about being asked to book 
campaign travel during congressional hours, and was told she 
should instead do it on her own time.\206\ The Staff Assistant 
said that she eventually ``won,'' and stopped booking political 
travel altogether.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \203\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
    \204\Exhibit 74; Exhibit 75; Exhibit 76.
    \205\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant.
    \206\Id.; see also 18(a) Interview of 2013 Member Office Chief of 
Staff.
    \207\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant. The Staff Assistant noted 
that her successor in that scheduling role told her that she was still 
expected to book some campaign flights. Id. The Political Fundraiser 
confirmed that the official Staff Assistants sometimes booked campaign 
and political travel, until around the time Representative Rodgers 
became Conference Chair. 18(a) Interview of Political Fundraiser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              b. Official Staff Made Campaign-Related Trips to the 
                    District
    Official staff based in D.C. made several trips to the 
district between at least 2008 and 2012, during which time they 
engaged in some activities for the congresswoman's campaign. 
Representative Rodgers claims the campaign work on all of these 
trips was secondary to an official purpose, but the Committee 
reviewed evidence demonstrating that was not always the case.
    According to one Staff Assistant, who had responsibility 
for scheduling and travel, Representative Rodgers' office would 
often ``come up with something that they could do 
congressionally'' when planning a political trip ``so that they 
would pay it on the congressional credit card.''\208\ The Staff 
Assistant also said that staff traveled to the district from 
Washington, D.C., for the 2012 election using congressional 
funds.\209\ She noted she observed staff working on campaign 
activities during the trip, not congressional work, and said 
she talked with her supervisor about how uncomfortable she was 
with it.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \208\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant.
    \209\Id.
    \210\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              c. Press Secretary's April and November 2012 Trips to the 
                    District
    OCE found substantial reason to believe Representative 
Rodgers' congressional staff traveled using official funds 
primarily for campaign-related activities.\211\ OCE 
specifically considered two trips by the Press Secretary, one 
from April 2 to April 6, 2012, and another from November 5 to 
November 7, 2012, to be instances where MRA funds were used in 
connection with trips that were primarily campaign in 
nature.\212\ The April 2012 trip coincided with the 
congresswoman's ``campaign kickoff'' fundraising events (called 
``Top of the Morning''), and the November 2012 trip coincided 
with the general election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \211\OCE's Referral at 18.
    \212\Id. at 18-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In support of its findings, OCE relied in part on the Press 
Secretary's testimony during her interview with OCE, where she 
stated the two trips were primarily campaign-related and that 
she requested leave for the dates of her travel.\213\ However, 
one week after the Press Secretary's testimony to OCE, an 
attorney who represented both her and Representative Rodgers 
contacted OCE attorneys to inform them the Press Secretary ``no 
longer believes that she took leave for this time.''\214\ 
Counsel also told OCE the Press Secretary worked a full 
official schedule during both trips.\215\ In a separate letter 
to the Committee on behalf of Representative Rodgers, counsel 
asserted that the Press Secretary ``reviewed her calendar and 
other records'' for the April and November 2012 travel periods 
following her OCE interview, and ``[s]he then recalled that the 
primary purpose of the travel had actually been to conduct 
official business.''\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \213\Id. at 19, 22.
    \214\Exhibit 77.
    \215\Id.
    \216\Appendix C at 12, 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In interviews with the Committee, the Press Secretary's 
testimony more closely matched her initial testimony to OCE 
than counsel's proffer. She recalled filling out a leave form 
for the trips and remembered telling OCE the trip was primarily 
campaign-related.\217\ She did not remember ever changing that 
recollection.\218\ To the contrary, she told the Committee she 
did not believe her recollection in her OCE interview was 
incorrect, and noted her recollection in 2017 was ``pretty much 
the exact same thing'' as in her OCE interview: the trip was a 
combination of both official and campaign activities, and she 
took leave ``to be safe, because there were campaign 
activities.''\219\ She also disagreed with the characterization 
attributed to her by counsel:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \217\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary.
    \218\Id.
    \219\Id.

          Q: Do you think it's correct to say that the primary 
        purpose of your travel was to conduct official 
        business?
          A: No. I think it was to do these Top of the Morning 
        [fundraiser] events [in April], which is why I remember 
        signing a vacation form [in April]. I would not have 
        done that if I thought the primary reason of my travel 
        was to conduct official business. But, like I said, 
        there was certainly both.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \220\Id.

The Press Secretary also told the Committee she understood her 
trip to the district in November 2012 to be ``for the 
reelection.''\221\ When shown her former counsel's email and 
letter stating she had changed her recollection, the Press 
Secretary was completely unfamiliar with the documents and said 
she was not aware that her counsel had contacted OCE to amend 
her testimony.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \221\Id.
    \222\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the Press Secretary's first interview with the 
Committee, her counsel (different from the counsel that 
represented her in OCE's interview) contacted the Committee to 
note the Press Secretary ``now recalls that she sought to 
clarify her OCE testimony by providing OCE, through her former 
counsel, with her travel calendar for the trips in 
question.''\223\ During a second interview with Committee staff 
to explain that statement, the Press Secretary said ``there 
were more official events than [she] had initially 
recalled.''\224\ The Press Secretary did not say her 
recollection of the primary purpose of the April and November 
2012 trips had changed, but noted she was ``a junior staffer at 
the time, and it wasn't [her] decision'' whether a trip was 
primarily official.\225\ She did ultimately submit her expenses 
for reimbursement to the official office, which she said 
someone would have asked her to do.\226\ She noted, ``it 
appears that the office determined that it was a full official 
trip, and I can't disagree with that determination.''\227\ She 
also pointed out that, while she still recalled submitting a 
leave request, it was possible the leave request was never 
processed because someone in the office determined the trip was 
official.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \223\Exhibit 78.
    \224\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary.
    \225\Id.
    \226\Id.; Exhibit 79.
    \227\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary.
    \228\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Documents reviewed by the Committee support the Press 
Secretary's assertion that she engaged in a mix of official and 
campaign work during the April 2012 trip.\229\ With respect to 
the Press Secretary's November 2012 trip to the district, the 
evidence indicates the trip was primarily campaign-related. The 
Press Secretary arrived in the district the day before the 
election and left the day after it. She recalled being present 
in the campaign office during the daytime.\230\ Representative 
Rodgers told the Committee she was unsure about whether the 
primary purpose of the Press Secretary's travel in November 
2012 was related to the election and said that she ``did not 
make that call.''\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \229\Representative Rodgers' counsel submitted a letter to the 
Committee on her behalf, claiming that only three of the sixteen 
interviews and other events on the Press Secretary's schedule for her 
April 2012 trip to the district were campaign-related. Appendix C at 
12-13. However, the Committee found this to be inaccurate; several of 
the interviews on the Press Secretary's calendar described as 
``official'' were explicitly planned to be about the congresswoman's 
campaign. Exhibits 80-82.
    \230\18(a) Interview of Press Secretary. Representative Rodgers' 
counsel asserted in a letter to the Committee that, of the eleven 
events on the Press Secretary's calendar for her November 2012 trip to 
the district, only one of them, an evening victory party on election 
night, constituted campaign activity. Appendix C. Despite counsel's 
claim, contemporaneous records show that seven of the ten remaining 
events on the Press Secretary's calendar were interviews that were 
explicitly planned to include discussion of campaign or political 
topics. Id.; Exhibit 83.
    \231\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              d. Political Travel by Mr. Deutsch
    The Committee found evidence that Mr. Deutsch took trips 
that were primarily political in nature without taking leave, 
even after OCE's investigation raised concerns regarding 
political travel by Representative Rodgers' official staff. Mr. 
Deutsch would regularly accompany Representative Rodgers on 
political trips outside D.C. or the congressional district 
during the work week.\232\ This was his practice both when he 
was Chief of Staff for her personal office and when he moved to 
the Conference. Mr. Deutsch indicated in his testimony that he 
understood he should take leave when traveling for the 
campaign.\233\ On a few occasions in 2014 and 2015, Mr. Deutsch 
submitted leave requests in connection with political 
travel,\234\ but in the majority of instances from 2008 through 
2015, there is no record of Mr. Deutsch requesting leave. The 
Committee found more than a dozen examples from 2013 to 2015 in 
which Mr. Deutsch traveled to attend campaign or PAC 
fundraisers, with no leave record associated with the dates of 
those trips.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \232\18(a) Interview of Political Fundraiser.
    \233\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
    \234\Exhibit 84.
    \235\Exhibit 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers told the Committee she expected 
staff to document and account for political trips they took, 
and she generally expected staff to take leave when they 
accompanied her on a political trip, but that was not the case 
for Mr. Deutsch.\236\ She explained that she understood the 
rules regarding campaign work to be different for him:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \236\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.

          [W]ith the Chief of Staff, I feel like, my 
        expectation is that the Chief of Staff has a little 
        more flexibility around political activities versus the 
        rest of the staff; and that there--my understanding is 
        that there is--that there's an understanding that the 
        Chief of Staff is going to be involved in both 
        political and the official activities from, you know, 
        depending on the day . . . I was not under the 
        impression that the Chief of Staff would have to 
        document every moment of every day or every hour or 
        every trip as detailed as I would expect the rest of 
        the staff to do.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \237\Id.

Representative Rodgers further explained that she had 
previously been under the impression that a Member can 
designate a staffer to be ``the political person,'' such as the 
Chief of Staff or District Director, and that person has 
greater flexibility to do campaign work.\238\ She assumed Mr. 
Deutsch was still working a full week's worth of work, making 
up the time spent during the day doing campaign work by working 
late or on the weekends.\239\ Since OCE's investigation, 
Representative Rodgers told the Committee she no longer 
believes that the Chief of Staff has more ``flexibility'' to 
assist with the campaign than other staff.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \238\Id. At least one staffer conveyed a similar view. 18(a) 
Interview of Staff Assistant (``I don't really know if this is 
accurate, but I was told that the District Director had a little bit 
more leeway with what he was allowed to do when it came to campaign 
work. I do know for a fact that the District Director never did 
anything in the office . . . It was the D.C. office that would come and 
not follow the rules.'').
    \239\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \240\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers was not sure whether she'd ever 
discussed this concept of ``flexibility'' with Mr. Deutsch and 
said she never specifically asked Mr. Deutsch if he was taking 
leave for any campaign or political work.\241\ She also never 
asked Mr. Deutsch or any other staff if they had enough unused 
leave time to help with the campaign.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \241\Id.
    \242\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers also told the Committee that, since 
OCE's investigation, ``every hour'' has been documented.\243\ 
When asked why there are no leave records for several of the 
political trips that Mr. Deutsch took after the OCE 
investigation concluded, the congresswoman said she believed 
they do exist, and could not explain why they had not been 
produced.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \243\Id.
    \244\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            v. Additional Campaign and Other Political Activities by 
                    Official Staff
    The Committee also reviewed evidence of additional 
instances where Representative Rodgers' staff blurred the line 
between campaign and official resources, including evidence of 
the following issues:
           During Representative Rodgers' 2012 
        campaign, congressional staff may have shared internal 
        official materials with the campaign.\245\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \245\See Exhibit 86 (New Media Director offered to send a memo 
drafted for official use to the campaign for use in donor email); 
Exhibits 87 and 88 (indicating an internal official talking points 
document was shared with the campaign).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           On occasions in 2010 and 2012, campaign 
        documents were likely printed in the congressional 
        office.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \246\See Exhibit 54 (Mr. Deutsch asked the Communications Director 
to print a campaign document and either hand it to the D.C. Staff 
Assistant or ``put on her chair); Exhibit 89 (Mr. Deutsch asked the 
Communications Director to print out a campaign document and hand to 
Representative Rodgers ``when she is in the office.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Between 2008 and 2012, three members of 
        Representative Rodgers' official staff each spent at 
        least one entire work day on activities relating to 
        filming campaign advertisements, without taking 
        leave.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \247\18(a) Interview of 2008-2009 Press Secretary (Press Secretary 
recalled being present at the shooting of a television ad on a week day 
for ``one whole day'' in 2008.); Exhibit 90 (In October 2010, Press 
Secretary told congresswoman she and Mr. Deutsch ``were working on a TV 
ad all day'' on a Wednesday); Exhibit 91 (In July 2012, District 
Director sent Mr. Deutsch a ``partial listing of [26] places that I 
will be taking the film person on Tuesday.''); Exhibit 92 (Mr. Deutsch 
sent a list of people to contact about appearing in the advertisements, 
stating that ``recruiting people will be our top priority Monday.''); 
18(a) Interview of District Director (estimated spending approximately 
8-10 hours working with film vendor on one of several days he worked on 
campaign advertisements.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Official staff worked with the campaign in 
        both 2010 and 2012 to draft letters to the editor 
        related to the campaign during office hours\248\ and in 
        the congressional office.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \248\Exhibit 93; Exhibit 94; Exhibit 95; Exhibit 96. The letters 
clearly related to Representative Rodgers' campaign, including 
discussions about her campaign opponents and urging voters to support 
her. E.g., Exhibit 93 (``On Tuesday night, I was flipping back and 
forth between the baseball game and the debate between Cathy McMorris 
Rodgers and Daryl Romeyn . . . Did Daryl Romeyn blatantly lie to voters 
or does he simply not know what he's talking about? Either answer 
should disqualify him from serving in Congress.''); Exhibit 94 (She's 
well positioned to deliver results on the priorities of our region. 
Contrast that with our state's junior senator . . . take it from this 
supporter, [Representative Rodgers] deserves your vote this November.).
    \249\18(a) Interview of Communications Director; 18(a) Interview of 
New Media Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Representative Rodgers' congressional staff 
        drove her to political events during office hours,\250\ 
        and at least two staffers said they would sometimes 
        seek mileage reimbursements from the MRA for those 
        drives.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \250\18(a) Interview of District Director; 18(a) Interview of Staff 
Assistant; 18(a) Interview of Deputy District Director.
    \251\18(a) Interview of District Director; 18(a) Interview of 
Deputy District Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           From at least 2010 to 2013, Representative 
        Rodgers and her staff sometimes sent and received 
        campaign communications from their official House email 
        accounts.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \252\The majority of campaign emails sent and received by official 
staff used personal email addresses for staff. Most of the instances of 
House email being used for campaign communications involved 
Representative Rodgers. She received campaign-related emails through 
her official House account on at least 50 occasions. On at least 20 of 
those occasions, she responded to the email from her official account. 
On at least 4 occasions, Representative Rodgers herself initiated a 
campaign-related email from her official House account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Official staff also made outlays to benefit the 
congresswoman's campaign. For example, in September 2012, the 
campaign committee reimbursed the Senior Policy Advisor $550 
for rebar he purchased with his own funds, to use as stakes for 
campaign signs.\253\ The campaign paid the New Media Director 
$89 for an ``expense reimbursement'' in 2011.\254\ The New 
Media Director could not recall the purpose of the 
reimbursement, though he noted that he did purchase bottled 
water for the campaign on one occasion.\255\ In 2008, the 
campaign committee spent at least $665 to reimburse the then-
Chief of Staff for her phone bill, which she used for campaign 
communications.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \253\Exhibit 97; 18(a) Interview of Senior Policy Advisor.
    \254\Exhibit 98.
    \255\18(a) Interview of New Media Director.
    \256\Exhibit 99; 18(a) Interview of 2005-2008 Chief of Staff (the 
former Chief of Staff also believed she paid for meals and other costs 
associated with fundraising events, for which she was later reimbursed 
by the campaign).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            vi. Voluntary Nature of Campaign Work
    The Committee found no evidence that Representative Rodgers 
ever compelled her staff to assist with her campaign or other 
political efforts. Most of the staffers that the Committee 
interviewed were willing volunteers and said they felt they 
could have declined to do campaign work without fear of 
negative consequences.
    A few staffers testified that they had the impression Mr. 
Deutsch expected them to do campaign work, even if he never 
explicitly said as much to them.\257\ Mr. Deutsch said that he 
generally understood staffers who participated in campaign 
activities to be volunteering their time.\258\ The Committee 
did not find any evidence indicating staffers faced adverse 
consequences for declining to assist with the congresswoman's 
campaigns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \257\18(a) Interview of 2008-2009 Press Secretary (former press 
secretary testified that when Mr. Deutsch became Chief of Staff, the 
press secretary felt that he could not decline to do campaign work, for 
fear of losing his job); 18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant (former 
scheduler testified that she felt Mr. Deutsch expected her to attend 
the Pink Flamingo fundraiser each year, and would have disapproved of 
her if she did not attend.); 18(a) Interview of Communications Director 
(former communications director testified that he never explicitly 
volunteered for the campaign and that Mr. Deutsch had told him that all 
campaign press was going to be handled by the official staff).
    \258\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Relevant House Rules, Laws and Other Applicable Standards of Conduct

            i. Use of Official Resources for Political and Campaign 
                    Activities
    Federal law requires that appropriations ``shall be applied 
only to the objects for which the appropriations were made . . 
.''\259\ Regulations from the CHA implement that requirement 
and provide that House funds and resources are to be used for 
official House business and may not be used for any unofficial 
purposes. The Members' Handbook states, ``[o]nly expenses the 
primary purpose of which [is] official and representational'' 
are reimbursable from the MRA, and the MRA may not pay for 
campaign expenses or political expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \259\31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Ethics Manual explains the general prohibition against 
using official resources for campaign or political purposes:

          [F]unds appropriated for Member, committee, and other 
        House offices are official resources, as are the goods 
        and services purchased with those funds. Accordingly, 
        among the resources that generally may not be used for 
        campaign or political resources are congressional 
        office equipment (including the computers, telephones 
        and fax machines), office supplies (including official 
        stationery and envelopes), and congressional staff 
        time.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \260\Ethics Manual at 123.

House buildings, rooms and offices are supported with official 
funds and are also considered official resources that may not 
be used for campaign or political activities.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \261\Id. at 127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are certain limited exceptions to the prohibition on 
using official resources for particular campaign-related 
activities, including coordination of the Member's schedule 
between the congressional office scheduler and the campaign. 
The Ethics Manual notes, however, ``the congressional office 
scheduler should not make travel arrangements for the Member's 
campaign trips either in the congressional office or while on 
official time.''\262\ Another notable exception where official 
staff time may be used for campaign activities is that the 
press secretary in a congressional office may respond to 
political questions that are merely incidental to an interview 
focused on official activities.\263\ Other than these and 
certain other very limited exceptions,\264\ there is no leeway 
to use official resources for campaign or political activities. 
Unlike the incidental personal use of official resources, there 
is no de minimis exception to the prohibition on using official 
resources for campaign or political purposes. This prohibition 
applies to all House employees equally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \262\Id. at 132.
    \263\Id. at 133.
    \264\The remaining campaign-related activities that may take place 
in congressional office or using official time are (1) referrals to the 
campaign office, (2) providing published materials to the campaign, (3) 
responding to questionnaires on legislative issues, and (4) providing 
nonpartisan voter registration materials. See Ethics Manual at 133-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some activities can be considered either ``official'' or 
``political'' at the Member's option, such as town hall 
meetings or leadership race activities.\265\ A single event or 
activity cannot be treated as both political and official; once 
the Member makes a determination, she is bound by it.\266\ The 
Committee's guidance recognizes, however, that travel can have 
both an official and political purpose.\267\ The Ethics Manual 
explains that ``Member and staff travel, including to one's 
district, may be paid with official funds only if the primary 
purpose of the trip is the conduct of official business.''\268\ 
However, ``[a]ny additional meal, lodging, or other travel 
expenses that the Member or staff person incurs in serving a 
secondary purpose must be paid by the source associated with 
that secondary purpose.''\269\ In the Members' Handbook, CHA 
cautions that, ``[i]f the primary purpose [of travel] is for a 
non-official event/purpose, the office cannot schedule official 
activities around the non-official event/purpose to make the 
travel eligible for congressional offices to be 
reimbursed.''\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \265\Id. at 178.
    \266\Id. at 179 (citing Advisory Opinion No. 6, reprinted at 375-
77).
    \267\Id. at 116.
    \268\Id. at 131.
    \269\Id. at 116.
    \270\Members' Handbook at 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Ethics Manual notes, ``[w]hat constitutes a staff 
member's `own time' is determined by the personnel policies 
that are in place in the employing office. Time that is 
available to a staff member, under those policies, to engage in 
personal or other outside activities may instead be used to do 
campaign work, if the individual so chooses.''\271\ As examples 
of what may be included in an employee's ``free time,'' the 
Committee cites an employee's lunch period, time after the end 
of the business day, and annual leave.\272\ The Committee's 
guidance recognizes, however, that ``it is unrealistic to 
impose conventional work hours and rules on congressional 
employees.''\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \271\Ethics Manual at 136.
    \272\Id.
    \273\Id. (quoting House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, 
Advisory Opinion No. 2 (July 11, 1973)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal law makes it a crime for a federal employee to 
secure through intimidation any ``valuable thing for any 
political purpose'' from another employee.\274\ The Committee 
has noted that compelling an employee to do campaign work may 
violate that provision.\275\ The Ethics Manual states that, if 
a Member or senior staff were to compel a House employee to do 
campaign work, it would ``result in an impermissible official 
subsidy of the Member's campaign.''\276\ The Committee has 
further explained that the prohibition on compelling campaign 
work is ``quite broad'' and ``[i]t forbids Members and senior 
staff from not only threatening or attempting to intimidate 
employees regarding doing campaign work but also from directing 
or otherwise pressuring them to do such work.''\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \274\18 U.S.C. Sec. 606.
    \275\Ethics Manual at 136 n.17.
    \276\Id. at 135-36.
    \277\Id. at 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, House employees are prohibited from making 
campaign contributions to their employing Members, pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 603. Under FEC regulations, most outlays made on 
behalf of a campaign are deemed to be contributions to that 
campaign from that individual, even if the outlay is promptly 
reimbursed by the campaign.\278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \278\See 11 C.F.R. Sec. 116.5(b). The major exception to this rule 
is for outlays that an individual makes to cover travel expenses 
incurred on behalf of the campaign. Outlays for the individual's own 
travel will not be deemed a contribution if either (1) the campaign 
provides reimbursement within 60 days after the expenses are incurred 
if payment was made by a credit card, or within 30 days in all other 
cases, id. Sec. 116.5(b)(1)(2), or (2) the individual outlays for 
transportation do not exceed $1,000 with respect to a single election, 
regardless of whether the campaign reimburses the outlays, id. 
Sec. 100.79(a). See also Ethics Manual at 139 n. 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ii. Additional House Rules, Laws, and Other Standards of 
                    Conduct
    House Rule XXIII contains the Code of Official Conduct, 
which governs the actions of any Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer or employee of the House.
    House Rule XXIII, clause 8, states that ``[a] Member . . . 
of the House may not retain an employee who does not perform 
duties for the offices of the employing authority commensurate 
with the compensation such employee receives.'' The Code in 
Ethics for Government Service, clause 3, also states that 
employees should ``[g]ive a full day's labor for a full day's 
pay.''
    House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 2, provide that ``[a] 
Member . . . officer, or employee of the House shall behave at 
all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the 
House,'' and ``shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the 
Rules of the House.''
    Finally, House Rule XXIII, clause 19 provides that the term 
``officer or employee of the House'' in the Code of Official 
Conduct means, an individual whose compensation is disbursed by 
the Chief Administrative Officer,'' and that ``[a]n individual 
whose services are compensated by the House pursuant to a 
consultant contract shall be considered an employee of the 
House for purposes of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 13'' of the 
Code of Official Conduct.

3. Analysis

    CHA regulations implement 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a), which 
requires that ``appropriations shall be applied only to the 
objects for which the appropriations were made except as 
otherwise provided by law,'' and provide that House funds and 
resources are to be used for official House business and may 
not be used for any unofficial purposes. CHA issues the 
Members' Handbook, which states that ``[o]nly expenses the 
primary purpose of which [is] official and representational'' 
are reimbursable from the MRA and the MRA may not pay for 
campaign or political expenses. The Ethics Manual has an entire 
section devoted to campaign activity. It makes clear that 
official resources cannot be used for campaign activities, 
except under certain very limited and expressly defined 
circumstances.\279\ The Ethics Manual is also clear that 
congressional staff are free to voluntarily engage in campaign 
activities, so long as they do so on their own time, and 
without using House resources.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \279\See Ethics Manual at 132-36 (noting that schedulers may 
coordinate with the campaign to schedule campaign appearances, the 
press secretary may answer occasional and merely incidental questions 
on political activities, the congressional office may refer campaign-
related letters and other inquiries to the campaign office, and the 
congressional office may provide the campaign with copies of materials 
it has issued publicly).
    \280\Id. at 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Code of Official Conduct, found in House Rule XXIII, 
also requires Members and employees to behave at all times in a 
manner that reflects creditably on the House (clause 1), and 
requires them to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Rules 
(clause 2). House Rule XXIII, clause 1 ``is the most 
comprehensive provision of the Code and was adopted, in part, 
so that the Committee, in applying the Code, would retain the 
ability to deal with any given act or accumulation of acts 
which, in the judgment of the committee, are severe enough to 
reflect discredit on the Congress.''\281\ House Rule XXIII, 
clause 2, allows the Committee to construe ethical rules 
broadly.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \281\Shuster at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 
Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative Judy Chu, H. Rept. 
113-11, 113th Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (2014) (Chu); Comm. on Ethics, In the 
Matter of Representative Laura Richardson, H. Rept. 112-642, 112th 
Cong., 2d Sess. (2012) (Richardson).
    \282\See Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative Ed 
Whitfield, H. Rpt. 114-687, 114th Cong., 2d Sess. 45 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has previously found the use of House 
resources for campaign-related activity to be a violation of 
House Rules, regulations and laws.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \283\See Richardson; Shuster; Barbara Rose-Collins; Comm. on 
Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Jim 
Bates, H. Rept. 101-293, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this matter, the Committee found that Representative 
Rodgers failed to establish and implement consistent policies 
to safeguard against the misuse of official resources for 
campaign purposes. As a result, she and her staff violated 
House rules, regulations and laws relating to the use of 
official resources for campaign activities in a number of ways, 
including (1) devoting official staff time to campaign and 
political activities, (2) using congressional office space for 
campaign and political activities, (3) using official funds for 
travel that was primarily related to her campaign, and (4) 
using additional House resources for political or campaign 
purposes.
            i. Official Staff Time was Used for Campaign or Political 
                    Activities
    The Committee found Representative Rodgers' official staff 
devoted official staff time to political activities. 
Representative Rodgers generally disputes this allegation and 
asserts staff engaged in campaign or other political work only 
on their own time.
    Many House employees choose to use their personal time to 
assist their bosses' campaigns. For many, this means that they 
save campaign work for the weekends or after they go home from 
work at the end of the day, but staff are free to do campaign 
work any time of day, any day of the week, as long as they are 
using their own time, and not their official time, to do so. 
The Committee anticipates staffers ``own time'' may not 
correspond to the hours outside a traditional 9 to 5 work 
schedule.\284\ The Committee has also long recognized that it 
``is not, and should not be, in the business of micromanaging 
personal offices, or disparaging a leadership style.''\285\ 
Accordingly, the Committee takes a ``flexible view'' on what is 
``own time'' and Members have significant discretion about 
staffing expectations, ``so long as those expectations respect 
the boundaries set up by the rules.''\286\ Those boundaries 
include the general expectation of a full day's work for a full 
day's pay.\287\ Additionally, the policies set by the office 
regarding office hours may not be enforced inconsistently in 
order to benefit a Member's campaign.\288\ These boundaries 
leave room for Members' offices to adapt to the particular 
needs of the office, without compromising their 
representational duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \284\Ethics Manual at 135-37.
    \285\Richardson at 56.
    \286\Id. at 89 90.
    \287\Ethics Manual at 279.
    \288\For example, the Committee would not permit a Member to set an 
office policy that opens the office only when there is no campaign work 
to do. Richardson at 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee could not determine what the actual policies 
were in Representative Rodgers' office regarding official time 
and campaign work by staff. Although she had written policies 
in her Employee Handbooks, those policies do not appear to have 
been consistently followed. The Handbooks included a 
requirement that staff complete a Campaign Work Authorization 
form when they volunteered on a campaign, but that form 
generally was not used. The Handbooks also provided that forms 
tracking staff leave, including leave for campaign-related 
reasons, were required to be sent to the district to be 
processed, but they were often not sent. And despite the office 
hours identified in her Handbooks, Representative Rodgers and 
some of her staffers expressed an understanding that the office 
had ``flexibility with hours.''\289\ These departures from the 
Handbook were not written down anywhere, apart from the 
Handbook's general language preserving the managers' authority 
to depart from the written policies, nor is there evidence 
these departures were clearly communicated to staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \289\See Appendix C at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ``flexibility with hours'' appears to have been 
primarily applied to campaign or other political activities, 
with some exceptions for circumstances such as bereavement and 
sick leave.\290\ For example, the Committee found numerous 
instances where staff attended morning fundraisers or other 
campaign events that would have prevented them from arriving at 
the office by 9 a.m. Staff who arrived fifteen minutes late to 
the office for other reasons, however, risked being caught in 
the so-called ``speed traps'' set up by Mr. Deutsch, where he 
would monitor staff arrivals ``to make a point to get here on 
time,'' and ``fine'' those who were ``straggling'' by requiring 
them to bring in breakfast for the office.\291\ While Members 
have discretion over how they manage their staff's work 
schedules, they cannot deploy that discretion differently for 
campaign-related activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \290\The Committee found at least two examples where staff were 
given a reprieve from the general office policies for bereavement 
leave. See 18(a) Interview of Press Secretary; 18(a) Interview of New 
Media Director. Staff also indicated that there was some flexibility 
for absences that would be covered by sick leave, such as doctor's 
appointments. See 18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant; 18(a) Interview 
of Press Secretary.
    \291\18(a) Interview of Jeremy Deutsch; see also 18(a) Interview of 
Press Secretary (Mr. Deutsch had a ``very strict rule about [staff 
arriving] at 8:45. Oftentimes he would lock the door and so anybody who 
came in after 8:45 would be publicly chastised and often asked to bring 
fresh bagels the next day for the entire team.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There were numerous instances where the Committee was not 
able to confirm whether employees were on their own time when 
performing campaign work, but serious questions were 
nonetheless raised. For example, with respect to debate 
preparation sessions, several members of Representative 
Rodgers' official staff were scheduled to spend over ten hours 
during the official work day attending such sessions (with the 
congresswoman present) in 2012.\292\ They spent additional 
hours preparing background materials for the debates and 
attending the debates themselves. However, even setting aside 
those instances, there was significant, unambiguous evidence 
that official staff time was used for political purposes. 
Several staffers explicitly acknowledged to the Committee that 
this occurred. In other instances, including entire days of 
political travel, such as Mr. Deutsch's out-of-state trips with 
the congresswoman and the 2012 Republican National Convention, 
staff suggested that they intended to use their own time but 
that did not happen, whether due to sloppy office practices or 
other reasons. These were not de minimis lapses or the actions 
of a single rogue staffer, but part of a regular practice of 
engaging in campaign work during official staff time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \292\See Exhibit 70; Exhibit 100; Exhibit 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ii. Congressional Offices and Facilities Were Used for 
                    Political Activities
    The Committee also found that congressional offices and 
facilities were used for campaign and political activities.
    As a general rule, House buildings and House rooms and 
offices may not be used for campaign or political activities. 
There are certain limited instances where campaign-related 
activities may take place in a congressional office, such as 
coordination of a Members' schedule, answering occasional press 
questions on political matters, and responding to election 
questionnaires that are limited to legislative issues.\293\ 
Those, however, are the exceptions and not the rule. They are 
limited to the explicit carve-outs articulated by the Committee 
in recognition that it would be impractical and unnecessary to 
prohibit those specific activities. In all other instances, 
however, campaign-related activities may not take place in 
congressional office space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \293\See Ethics Manual at 132-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers concedes that her campaign debate 
was discussed at a meeting in the congressional office on 
Sunday, October 7, 2012, but contends that was a regrettable, 
one-off occurrence. However, the record demonstrates there were 
several other instances where meetings were held in the 
congressional office space, with the congresswoman present, to 
discuss political matters, including at least six speech 
drafting sessions for the Dorchester and CPAC speeches in early 
2013.\294\ While Representative Rodgers has characterized the 
Dorchester and CPAC speeches as official, that view is 
inconsistent with the explicit political themes in the text of 
the speeches, her campaign staff's involvement with the 
speeches, and her own staff's recognition that the speeches 
were not official.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \294\Exhibit 59; Exhibit 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the evidence indicates several members of 
Representative Rodgers' official staff worked on political 
tasks from their desks in the congressional office. This was a 
foreseeable result of staff being asked during office hours to 
help with the congresswoman's campaign. Although Representative 
Rodgers and Mr. Deutsch may not have witnessed the campaign or 
political work staff was doing in the congressional office, 
they never explicitly cautioned staff to avoid doing so, and 
their own actions sent a contradictory message.
            iii. MRA Funds Were Used for Campaign and Political Travel
    The Ethics Manual cautions that ``Member and staff travel, 
including to one's district, may be paid with official funds 
only if the primary purpose of the trip is the conduct of 
official business.''\295\ The Ethics Manual adds that ``[t]he 
determination of the primary purpose of the trip must be made 
in a reasonable manner, and one relevant factor in making that 
determination is the number of days devoted to each 
purpose.''\296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \295\Ethics Manual at 131.
    \296\Id. at 116
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lack of adequate record-keeping makes it difficult to 
determine the amount of time devoted to political purposes for 
each trip. The Committee determined, however, that the record 
as a whole supports a finding that at least two trips paid for 
with MRA funds were primarily for political or campaign 
purposes.\297\ For the Press Secretary's April 2012 trip to the 
district: while the Committee reviewed evidence indicating that 
there were official activities during those trips, the weight 
of the evidence indicated that the primary purpose for each of 
those trips was to support the congresswoman's fundraising 
events. With respect to the Press Secretary's November 2012 
trip to the district, the Committee found the evidence to be 
particularly clear that the primary reason for that travel was 
political--specifically, for the general election.\298\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \297\See Rose-Collins at 13 (Investigative Subcommittee found 
travel by district director was primarily for the purpose of attending 
a campaign event, despite staff's assertion that his primary reason for 
travel was official, noting that the only full day of travel was the 
day of the campaign event.).
    \298\The Committee also notes its concern about the shifting 
accounts provided with respect to the Press Secretary's April 2012 and 
November 2012 trips. Counsel purported to correct testimony on the 
Press Secretary's behalf, but when the Press Secretary was shown 
counsel's communications, she was completely unfamiliar with them and 
disputed at least some of the representations made on her behalf, 
including whether she had submitted a request for leave in connection 
with those trips. It is particularly concerning the same counsel 
represented Representative Rodgers at the time that these 
representations were made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By using official funds to pay for the Press Secretary's 
travel expenses on her April and November 2012 trips, 
Representative Rodgers violated House rules and laws.
            iv. Additional Improper Campaign and Political Activities 
                    by Official Staff
    The Committee also found that Representative Rodgers' staff 
made use of internal official materials for campaign purposes, 
received mileage reimbursements from the MRA for driving the 
congresswoman to campaign events, and made impermissible 
outlays to her campaign.
    The Ethics Manual lays out the standards of conduct with 
respect to each of those issues. While the campaign may receive 
materials published by the congressional office, materials that 
are prepared for internal office use may not be shared with the 
campaign.\299\ This issue can arise in the context of preparing 
a Member for debates, which often involves highlighting the 
Member's legislative accomplishments. Members' campaigns may 
make use of information about Members' accomplishments prepared 
for official use, provided that material is publicly available. 
However, the Committee found that Representative Rodgers' staff 
shared unpublished background materials and talking points with 
her campaign that were prepared for internal use in her House 
office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \299\Ethics Manual at 128, 133-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The use of MRA funds for mileage reimbursement is governed 
by the same restrictions as the use of MRA funds for other 
travel expenses. The Ethics Manual advises that ``Members 
should maintain records of the mileage attributable to 
official, political, and personal trips to ensure that no 
account is subsidizing another and that any crossover use of a 
vehicle is indeed incidental.''\300\ Representative Rodgers 
provided no such records, and the Committee found, based on the 
testimony of several members of her staff, that the MRA was 
likely used to reimburse staff for travel to campaign events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \300\Id. at 330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Staff are also prohibited from making expenditures on 
behalf of their employing Member's campaign, as those 
expenditures are considered impermissible campaign 
contributions.\301\ As the Ethics Manual makes clear, this is 
true regardless of whether the staffer making the impermissible 
outlay is later reimbursed by the campaign.\302\ Representative 
Rodgers' campaign committee appears to have reimbursed her 
staff for several hundred dollars in impermissible outlays 
since 2008.\303\
            v. Representative Rodgers Takes an Overbroad View of 
                    Whether an Activity can be Considered ``Official''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \301\Ethics Manual at 139. There is an exception for travel-related 
expenditures. Id.
    \302\Id.
    \303\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Michael Collins, H. Rept. 112-193, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (2011) 
(finding that the respondent had been ``reimbursed for outlays he made 
to the campaign [of his employing Member] with his own funds. Some of 
the outlays appear to violate campaign finance laws and House 
rules.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers has repeatedly suggested that 
certain activities undertaken for an expressly political or 
campaign purpose were actually official activities because they 
involved highlighting her legislative accomplishments. The 
demarcation between official and political events is not always 
simple. The Committee has long recognized some activities may 
be considered either ``official'' or ``political'' and, in 
those circumstances, leaves it to the Member to make a 
determination about which designation applies.\304\ However, 
the Committee requires that, once a Member designates an event 
as political by using campaign resources, no official resources 
may then be used.\305\ Representative Rodgers used both 
campaign and official staff to assist her with activities she 
now suggests can be considered official. As the Committee has 
made clear, ``[a] single event cannot, for purposes of the 
House rules, be treated as both political and official.''\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \304\Ethics Manual at 178-79.
    \305\Id. at 179.
    \306\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            vi. Representative Rodgers is Responsible for the Misuse Of 
                    Official Resources for Political Activities in her 
                    Office
    The Ethics Manual cautions, ``each Member should be aware 
that he or she may be held responsible for any improper use of 
House resources that occurs in the Member's office.''\307\ The 
Committee has long held Members responsible for their staff's 
improper use of official resources, even when the Members are 
not aware of their staff's actions.\308\ While the Committee 
recognizes that staff misconduct is at times the result of 
``rogue'' employees acting contrary to their employing Member's 
authorization, a staffer is not ``rogue'' simply because that 
staffer acts contrary to office policy when such policies were 
rarely enforced, and the staffer's supervisor knew or had 
reason to know of the misconduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \307\Ethics Manual at 33.
    \308\Chu at 6; see also Shuster at 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers has suggested her Communications 
Director was the only member of her congressional staff who 
used official resources for her campaign, and asserted she had 
``no contemporaneous knowledge whatsoever of [his] improper 
conduct.''\309\ The Committee found otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \309\Appendix C at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Communications Director's use of official resources for 
campaign work was blatant and obvious. He primarily sent 
campaign-related communications while sitting in the 
congressional office, during office hours, using his House 
computer. He also discussed that campaign work with the 
congresswoman in the congressional office. Representative 
Rodgers' counsel argues that her admission to discussing 
campaign speeches in the congressional office with the 
Communications Director does not support the finding that she 
had ``any--let alone sufficient--knowledge'' of his improper 
conduct.\310\ But of course, that admission does provide 
further support for that finding, since discussing campaign 
speeches in the congressional office was improper conduct. At 
the very least, when the Communications Director brought up the 
campaign speech in the office, Representative Rodgers was 
presented with an opportunity to impress upon him the need to 
do campaign work on his own time, outside the congressional 
office. That same opportunity was also presented when he 
provided her with copies of campaign speeches in the 
congressional office. Representative Rodgers never took any of 
these opportunities.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \310\Id. at 8.
    \311\The Committee agrees with the congresswoman's argument that 
the Communications Director's suggestions to OCE that he was unsure or 
confused as to whether campaign work was optional or could be performed 
on official time do not hold water. See Appendix C at 9. The 
Communications Director received clear advice from the Ethics Committee 
on these issues in June of 2010 and demonstrated in contemporaneous 
emails that he understood that advice, and yet he continued to act 
contrary to that advice. See Exhibit 102. Nonetheless, by failing to 
enforce policies against using official resources for campaign work, 
Representative Rodgers sent a signal that such misconduct could be 
overlooked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee's record also shows that several other 
official staffers, including (but not limited to) her Chief of 
Staff,\312\ District Director, Press Secretary, Legislative 
Director, New Media Director, and Staff Assistant, also used 
official resources for her campaign on multiple occasions. 
Given the breadth of campaign work performed by her official 
staff, often with short turn-around times during the week, 
Representative Rodgers had every reason to question whether her 
staff was in compliance with ethics requirements when assisting 
her campaign. If Representative Rodgers did not see the 
implications of the evidence before her, it was because she 
failed to exercise the level of supervision and care for the 
conduct of her staff that the Committee expects of Members. 
Further, she could have curtailed the potential for abuse of 
official resources had she established consistent policies 
regarding campaign work by staff that were actually 
acknowledged and enforced. Not only did Representative Rodgers 
miss numerous red flags that should have alerted her to her 
staff's noncompliance with rules relating to campaign work, the 
Committee found that in some circumstances, such as during the 
debate preparation session held in her congressional office, 
she had actual knowledge of such noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \312\The Committee notes that Representative Rodgers' previously 
held notion that the same rules regarding campaign work on official 
time do not apply to the Chief of Staff was incorrect, as she now 
recognizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers' failure to notice or take action in 
response to the lapses of her staff helped contribute to a tone 
for the office that further allowed for a pattern of 
misconduct. Like many Members, Representative Rodgers delegated 
much of the day-to-day running of her office to her Chief of 
Staff. The Committee recognizes that Members have a significant 
amount of discretion in how they run their offices, but each 
Member ultimately remains responsible for their office's 
compliance with relevant ethical boundaries. Nonetheless, 
senior staff are also expected to adhere to, and encourage 
those they supervise to adhere to, all House rules. One member 
of Representative Rodgers' congressional staff told the 
Committee she found the allegations in OCE's Referral to be 
``pretty accurate,'' but noted that she did not believe the 
Congresswoman was herself aware of most of the issues:

          You know, you don't bring certain things up with the 
        Congresswoman, because it's just things that, you know, 
        they didn't want her being stressed about . . . Jeremy 
        Deutsch was the person who ran the show, and Jeremy 
        Deutsch made all the decisions, and, you know, I think 
        he may have informed the Congresswoman on certain 
        decisions after the fact, but I--I don't believe that 
        she was aware of these things that were going on, 
        because--and I'm not trying to say she's oblivious, but 
        it's just something that she didn't--she wasn't 
        involved in, because she was involved in other 
        stuff.\313\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \313\18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant.

    The Committee found it particularly concerning that some of 
the misuse of official resources appears to have continued 
after OCE's investigation began, at which time Representative 
Rodgers was on notice that there may be substantial reason to 
believe at least some members of her congressional staff were 
using official resources for her campaign.
            vii. Representative Rodgers did not compel her staff to 
                    assist with her campaigns, but should exercise 
                    greater care to ensure staff's participation was 
                    voluntary
    Although official staff are permitted to participate in 
campaign work on their own time, without the use of official 
resources, their participation must not be compelled. The 
Committee has noted that the coercion of congressional 
employees to work for a campaign would constitute an 
impermissible subsidy of that campaign.\314\ As the Ethics 
Manual notes, ``[t]he prohibition against coercing staff or 
requiring staff members to do campaign work is quite broad. It 
forbids Members and senior staff from not only threatening or 
attempting to intimidate employees regarding doing campaign 
work, but also from directing or otherwise pressuring them to 
do such work.''\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \314\Ethics Manual at 136-37; see also id. at 137, n.17 
(``Depending on the circumstances, compelling a House employee to do 
campaign work may also violate a provision of the federal criminal 
code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 606.'').
    \315\Id. at 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee found that Representative Rodgers' official 
staff volunteered to help with her campaign and most staff felt 
they could decline to assist with political activities without 
suffering any negative consequences. However, the Committee 
notes that staff were frequently asked to assist with the 
campaign by their supervisors, including by Mr. Deutsch, and 
without assurances to the contrary, such requests can be 
perceived as mandatory assignments from staff. Some members of 
the congresswoman's staff indicated to the Committee that they 
felt the Chief of Staff had an expectation they assist with the 
campaign and might view someone as failing to be a ``team 
player'' if they declined to assist.\316\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \316\18(a) Interview of New Media Director; 18(a) Interview of 
Communications Director; 18(a) Interview of Staff Assistant; 18(a) 
Interview of 2008-2009 Press Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the Committee did not find that Representative 
Rodgers, Mr. Deutsch or anyone acting on Representative 
Rodgers' behalf, actually required staff to perform campaign 
work, the Committee reminds all Members that they wield 
enormous influence over their staff and therefore should take 
caution to ensure that when staff assists with their campaigns, 
they do not feel any pressure or expectation to do so.

 C. ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO USE OF OFFICIAL AND CAMPAIGN RESOURCES FOR 
                            LEADERSHIP RACE

1. Background

    As part of her campaign to be elected Chair of the House 
Republican Conference, Representative Rodgers prepared and 
distributed an informational packet and video in the weeks 
leading up to the November 14, 2012 Conference vote.\317\ She 
told OCE that the packet and video were a ``combined effort'' 
of her campaign and congressional staff.\318\ At least five 
official staffers were involved in leadership race activities: 
the New Media Director, the Legislative Director, the 
Communications Director, the Press Secretary, and Mr. Deutsch. 
From the unofficial side, the Political Fundraiser, Speech 
Consultant, Leadership Consultant and Mr. Shore were involved. 
At least some of the unofficial staffers worked out of the 
congresswoman's congressional office in the time between the 
general election and the Conference election.\319\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \317\OCE Referral, Ex. 4.
    \318\Id.
    \319\18(a) Interview of Political Fundraiser; 18(a) Interview of 
Leadership Consultant. The Political Fundraiser told the Committee 
that, although she was working for the campaign during the time of the 
leadership race, she was in D.C. ``as a volunteer/friend helping.'' 
18(a) Interview of Political Fundraiser. The campaign paid for her 
accommodations at a hotel while she was in D.C. during the leadership 
race. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 2, 2012, Leadership Consultant contacted the 
Committee asking whether the MRA could be used to pay the cost 
of mailing copies of the packet.\320\ Leadership Consultant's 
question was specific to mailing the packet; there is no record 
of her or anyone else working for the congresswoman seeking 
guidance on whether any other resources could be used in 
connection with the packet, such as official staff time or 
congressional office space, nor did she ask about any other 
aspects of the leadership race, such as the video. Committee 
counsel responded to Leadership Consultant: ``Yes. Official 
resources are permitted for leadership race purposes.''\321\ A 
few minutes later, Committee counsel followed up, noting that 
if the information being mailed was ``focused on fundraising 
accomplishments or goals,'' that might be an issue.\322\ 
Leadership Consultant sent a copy of the packet to Committee 
counsel, asking her to review to see if it was permissible to 
mail the packet, but Committee counsel responded that she was 
unable to make that call, and suggested Mr. Deutsch call CHA 
for an opinion.\323\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \320\Leadership Consultant contacted Kelle Strickland, who was then 
Counsel to the Chairman of the Committee, on November 2, 2012. Exhibit 
103 (After being forwarded a draft of the packet by Mr. Deutsch on 
November 2, Leadership Consultant asked him ``Should I have Kelly look 
for legality and Mra?''); Exhibit 104 (Leadership Consultant emailed 
Ms. Strickland asking ``Can you use your mra to FedEx leadership race 
material to members of congress?'').
    \321\Exhibit 104.
    \322\Exhibit 105.
    \323\Exhibit 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 5, 2012, Mr. Deutsch contacted CHA and learned 
that the mailing of the packet would need to be paid for with 
campaign funds,\324\ which is what ultimately happened.\325\ 
The costs associated with production of the video were also 
paid for with campaign funds.\326\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \324\Exhibit 107 (Legislative Director informed Political 
Fundraiser, ``Jeremy just finished with admin, it has to be all 
campaign funds.''). Representative Rodgers was aware that her staff 
sought guidance on what resources could be used for the packet and told 
the Committee that she recalled that the advice received was confusing 
and not clear. 18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \325\Exhibit 108.
    \326\Exhibit 109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers' counsel told the Committee that, 
after learning from CHA that the packet had to be mailed with 
campaign funds, ``[a]ll activity associated with the 
Congresswoman's leadership race followed said precedents,'' and 
``no official staff time or any other House resources were used 
in furtherance of'' the mailing.\327\ Records reviewed by the 
Committee, however, indicate that a mix of campaign and 
official resources continued to be used. Official staff spent 
November 6, 2012 working to print and add labels to deliver the 
packets,\328\ and to prepare emails attaching the packet and 
video.\329\ At least one of the staffers involved testified 
that he did this work from the congressional office.\330\ None 
of the official staff took leave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \327\Appendix C at 20.
    \328\Exhibit 110.
    \329\Exhibit 111.
    \330\18(a) Interview of New Media Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The New Media Director, who Representative Rodgers said was 
the point person for the leadership race on the official 
staff,\331\ spent a substantial portion the workday stuffing 
and labeling the packets for distribution in Washington, D.C. 
The New Media Director sent an email timestamped at 10:46 a.m. 
to Mr. Deutsch, the Legislative Director, and the Political 
Fundraiser with a list of addresses for the labels, noting 
``[p]ackets should be ready by 3:00 PM at Kinkos. I'd like to 
have the plain manilla [sic] envelopes labeled, stamped 
``Member Attention' and ready to stuff by then.''\332\ He 
emailed again at 5:23 p.m., confirming that Kinkos had run the 
copies, that all envelopes had been stuffed and sorted, and 
that he was planning to ``set up shop at the `home office' 
around 6:00 PM ET.''\333\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \331\OCE Referral, Ex. 4.
    \332\Exhibit 110.
    \333\Id. The Legislative Director told the Committee that he worked 
to mail about 200 packets from a hotel in Spokane, and that ``the 
mailing of the packets was something that happened at like 9 o'clock at 
night.'' 18(a) Interview of Legislative Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The New Media Director told the Committee that he worked on 
the packet in the congressional office and did not recall ever 
being told that he should not do so.\334\ He said he was told 
early on that the leadership race was something that could use 
official resources, and that while he recalled that a question 
came up late in the process about using campaign resources, he 
did not understand the question to involve whether his overall 
duties with respect to the leadership race should be considered 
official or campaign.\335\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \334\18(a) Interview of New Media Director.
    \335\Id. The New Media Director also told the Committee that the 
Chief of Staff offered him a $10,000 salary bonus contingent on him 
assisting with the leadership race, but that he did not end up getting 
the bonus before he left the Congresswoman's office. Id., Exhibit 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Relevant House Rules, Laws, and Other Applicable Standards of 
        Conduct

    The Committee's public guidance regarding the use of 
campaign and official resources in support of a campaign for 
House leadership offices provides that, ``[a]s a general 
matter, a Member may use campaign funds to pay for activities 
in furtherance of a campaign for one of the House leadership 
offices.''\336\ The Committee has further stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \336\Ethics Manual at 161.

          A Member wishing to use any official House resource 
        in furtherance of a campaign for a House leadership 
        office such as official stationery, the Inside Mail, or 
        official staff time should consult with the Committee 
        on House Administration or the Franking Commission, as 
        well as with the [Committee on Ethics], on the extent 
        to which those resources may be used for this purpose. 
        However, when a particular activity related to a 
        leadership race is supported with campaign resources, 
        no official House resources may be devoted to that 
        activity except to the extent noted above.\337\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \337\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Analysis

    Leadership elections present a unique application of the 
rules relating to the use of official and campaign resources. 
As a general matter, the Committee permits Members to use 
campaign or official resources to pay for activities in 
furtherance of a campaign for one of the House leadership 
offices.\338\ However, once a Member uses campaign resources to 
support a leadership race activity, no official resources may 
be devoted to that activity.\339\ The Committee's public 
guidance cautions Members wishing to use official House 
resources, including official staff time, in furtherance of a 
leadership campaign to consult with CHA and the Committee for 
further guidance.\340\ Representative Rodgers' office did that 
with respect to one particular activity related to her 
leadership race: the mailing of an informational packet. Her 
office was ultimately told that the mailing of the packet must 
be paid for with campaign resources. She then used campaign 
funds to pay for mailing the packet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \338\Id. at 161.
    \339\Id.
    \340\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once she determined to mail the packet with campaign funds, 
Representative Rodgers should have ensured that no official 
resources, including official staff time, were used to mail the 
packet. This is demonstrated in an example in the Ethics 
Manual, which provides the following scenario:

          A Member who is sending a mailing on a leadership 
        race decides to pay the printing and mailing expenses 
        with campaign funds. No official staff time or any 
        other House resources may be used in furtherance of the 
        mailing.\341\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \341\Id.

As discussed, the Committee found evidence that the New Media 
Director mailed the packet on official staff time, from the 
congressional office, after Representative Rodgers decided to 
use campaign funds for the mailing.
    The Committee acknowledges Representative Rodgers' office 
made the effort to seek guidance from the Committee and CHA, 
and accordingly, declined to find a violation of House rules, 
laws or other standards of conduct in connection with the 
congresswoman's leadership activities prior to seeking 
guidance. Representative Rodgers told the Committee she found 
the guidance relating to the leadership race to be 
``confusing'' and ``not clear.''\342\ While there may have been 
some initial ambiguity in her staff's communications with CHA 
and the Committee, Representative Rodgers ultimately received a 
very clear answer: the packet she sent for her leadership race 
should be mailed with campaign funds. Indeed, the printing and 
postage costs were paid with campaign funds. However, 
Representative Rodgers failed to communicate that guidance 
clearly to the point person for the activity.\343\ If she was 
confused or unclear about whether other official resources 
could be used to mail the packet, she or her staff could have 
asked that question just as easily as they asked about what 
funds could be used, but they did not do so. The Committee 
found that Representative Rodgers violated House rules and 
regulations by making use of official resources, including 
staff time, to mail her leadership race packet after she 
learned that the packet must be paid for with campaign funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \342\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \343\See 18(a) Interview of Leadership Consultant (Q: Just to be 
clear, that issue of whether paid campaign staff and official staff 
could work on the same tasks related to the leadership race, that issue 
didn't come up to your knowledge? A: Not at all. We didn't bring it up. 
It wasn't about comingling of funds or anything like that. We were all 
on the same mission of just producing a good product for the boss.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   IV. REMEDIAL ACTION AND SANCTIONS


A. REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS IS REQUIRED TO REIMBURSE THE TREASURY FOR HER 
                      MISUSE OF OFFICIAL RESOURCES

    The Members' Handbook states, ``[e]ach Member is personally 
responsible for the payments of any official and 
representational expenses incurred that exceed the provided MRA 
or that are incurred but are not reimbursable under these 
regulations.''\344\ Consistent with this guidance, where 
Members have used official funds for impermissible purposes, 
the Committee has found that they should repay any misspent 
funds.\345\ The Committee believes Members should be required 
to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for impermissible disbursements 
from the MRA even where the exact amount of such disbursements 
cannot be determined.\346\ Where Members and those under their 
supervision and control have misused funds from other House 
accounts, the Committee believes the same remedy is required. 
Members are ultimately responsible for authorizing the expenses 
of the offices under their control; regardless of whether that 
office is a personal congressional office or a leadership 
office, the funds entrusted to a Member for those expenses are 
not that Member's own, and should be repaid by that Member when 
put to improper use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \344\Members' Handbook at 2; see also Ethics Manual at 323 
(``Members may be personally liable for misspent funds or expenditures 
exceeding the MRA.'').
    \345\See, e.g., Gutierrez at 28; Comm. on Standards of Official 
Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Charles C. Diggs, H. Rept. 96-
351, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. (1979) (Member was required to repay House 
$40,031.66 for the ``personal benefit he received from his misconduct'' 
in giving his office staff raises and requiring them to pay certain of 
his personal expenses out of those raises); Comm. on Standards of 
Official Conduct, In the Matter of Adam Clayton Powell, H. Rept. 90-27, 
90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967) (Member was censured and fined $40,000 for 
various acts, including misappropriating public funds for personal 
travel, and for paying his wife a salary though she performed no 
official duties; the Committee noted that the fine would ``offset any 
civil liability of Mr. Powell to the United States of America with 
respect to'' the allegations.).
    \346\Gutierrez at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In some cases, the Committee has found that Members made 
improper use of official funds, but has not made a finding that 
they are required to reimburse the Treasury, particularly where 
the misuse occurred without the Member's knowledge or approval, 
or was de minimis.\347\ With respect to several of the 
allegations reviewed by the Committee in this matter, the 
misuse of official funds was not de minimis, and the Committee 
found Representative Rodgers had reason to know that some of 
the misuse was occurring. Accordingly, the Committee found that 
Representative Rodgers should reimburse the Treasury for at 
least some of the official resources misused by her offices. 
For some of the misused official resources, the Committee found 
that it would be inequitable to hold Representative Rodgers 
personally liable, but nonetheless believes she holds some 
responsibility for the misuse and must take better care to 
prevent the underlying conduct in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \347\See, e.g., Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the 
Matter of Representative Austin J. Murphy, H. Rept. 100-485, 100th 
Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the Committee could not determine the precise 
value of all official resources misappropriated to 
impermissible uses, the Committee has calculated what it 
believes to be a reasonable estimate for the amount 
Representative Rodgers should repay, as discussed further 
below. For official resources misused to benefit her campaign, 
Representative Rodgers may reimburse the Treasury with campaign 
funds.

1. Unauthorized Consultant Expenses

    Mr. Shore was compensated with official funds for services 
and expenses for which House rules and/or laws do not permit 
official funds to be used. Mr. Shore is no longer within the 
Committee's jurisdiction. However, as discussed above, the 
Committee has long found Members to be responsible for their 
staff's misconduct, particularly where the Member was aware of, 
or directed the impermissible conduct. Representative Rodgers 
herself appears to have paid little attention to the 
compensation of her consultants and was not even sure whether 
Mr. Shore had continued providing services under the contract 
after June 2013.\348\ However, the Committee has also found 
Members responsible for reimbursing the Treasury where, as 
here, the impermissible conduct resulted from the Member's 
inadequate supervision.\349\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \348\18(a) Interview of Representative Rodgers.
    \349\See Gutierrez at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rodgers is the person in charge of the 
office that procured Mr. Shore's services to the tune of more 
than a quarter million dollars in House funds over the last 
four years, and thus bears responsibility for ensuring those 
funds were properly expended. As discussed above, the Committee 
found that Mr. Shore likely received improper compensation for 
the travel expenses he incurred from November 2012 to January 
2013, in the form of excess salary payments in January and 
February 2013. The Committee considered whether Representative 
Rodgers should be required to reimburse the Treasury for Mr. 
Shore's inflated salary payment.\350\ However, the Committee 
took note of the fact that the Conference Director of 
Operations believed that the larger salary payments reflected 
Mr. Shore's heavier workload. The Committee found her to be a 
credible witness. Given that she understood those payments to 
be valid, there is little reason to think Representative 
Rodgers would have reason to question the payments. 
Accordingly, the Committee determined it would be inequitable 
to require Representative Rodgers to reimburse those funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \350\The Committee has previously noted ``the individual who 
authorized the disbursements should be held responsible for such 
actions since the recipient is not in a position to set into motion the 
administrative process resulting in payment.'' Comm. on Standards of 
Official Conduct, Summary of Activities, One Hundredth Congress, H. 
Rept. 100-1125, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. 6-7 (1989) (taking no further 
action in the matter of Representative Mary Rose Oakar after 
Representative Oakar reimbursed the Treasury for disbursements to 
compensate an individual who violated House and statutory requirements 
governing where employees may perform their duties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee also considered whether to require 
Representative Rodgers to reimburse the Treasury for the 
payments to Mr. Shore's consulting firm, Datagraphics. While 
serving as an employee of the Conference, Mr. Shore was 
responsible for overseeing the Conference budget through which 
$52,500 was directed to Datagraphics. However, those payments 
were approved by the CAO, which is charged by the House with 
overseeing the payment of vendor services. For that reason, the 
Committee declined to find that Representative Rodgers must 
reimburse the Treasury for the disbursements to Datagraphics, 
and instead determined that the circumstances of Mr. Shore's 
vendor relationship with the House are better reviewed by the 
House Inspector General. Nonetheless, the Committee cautions 
Representative Rodgers and the whole House community to avoid 
even the appearance of a conflict of interest when entering 
into relationships with contractors on behalf of the House.
    Representative Rodgers' use of consultants also involved a 
violation of Rule XXIV's prohibition on unofficial office 
accounts. The Committee has not historically found any 
reimbursement to be required for unofficial office 
accounts.\351\ That is not to say that the Committee views 
violations of Rule XXIV as any less serious than violations 
involving the misuse of official resources, only that 
reimbursement of the Treasury is not an appropriate remedy in 
such a situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \351\See, e.g., Gingrich.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Official Staff Time

    The exact amount of staff time devoted to Representative 
Rodgers' campaign and political activities since 2008 cannot be 
precisely determined, at least in part due to the lack of 
records kept by the office to track employee time. Given the 
imprecise nature of the analysis, the Committee has opted to 
take a conservative approach to calculating an appropriate 
reimbursement.\352\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \352\See Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Don Young, H. Rept. 113-487, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. 62 
(2014) (Young) (ISC could not determine the precise value of lodging 
and hunting services given to a Member because the host ``did not 
prepare an invoice for the trip'' and it was unclear what hunting 
services the Member took advantage of. Accordingly, the ISC valued the 
hunting services based on the least expensive option available).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As discussed above, Mr. Deutsch frequently accompanied the 
congresswoman on political trips without taking leave from 2008 
through at least 2015, and the Communications Director worked 
on more than a dozen campaign speeches, press releases, and 
other documents while on official time from 2008 through at 
least 2012. They both also attended the Republican National 
Convention in August 2012, and there is no record of their 
annual leave balances being charged for those days of 
travel.\353\ In sum, these two employees each likely spent more 
than five days' worth of official time on political work, but 
five days represents a reasonable minimum estimate. 
Accordingly, the Committee determined that Mr. Deutsch and the 
Communications Director each spent a minimum of five full days' 
worth of official time on campaign work during the time they 
have been employed in the congresswoman's office, which should 
be reimbursed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \353\The Convention trips involved five official workdays, but the 
Committee recognizes that staff may have spent some of this time 
responding to official emails, or doing other work related to their 
official duties. Accordingly, the Committee has declined to find that 
Representative Rodgers must reimburse the Treasury for her staff's pay 
for all five days of the Convention trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee also determined that the Press Secretary and 
New Media Director each spent at least three full days' worth 
of official time over the course of their employment with the 
congresswoman doing campaign or political activities. In 
addition to devoting substantial time to debate preparation and 
other campaign-related assignments, at least some of which 
appears to have occurred on official time, both of these 
employees attended the five-day long Republican National 
Convention in August 2012 and there is no record of their 
annual leave balances being charged for those days of travel. 
The New Media Director used official staff time to help mail 
the leadership race packets after the staff received CHA 
guidance that the packets must be paid for with campaign funds. 
Documents indicate that the Press Secretary frequently used 
official staff time to work on campaign communications tasks, 
including spending an entire day working on a television ad for 
the campaign with Mr. Deutsch.\354\ As with Mr. Deutsch and the 
Communications Director, it is likely that the total official 
time the New Media Director and Press Secretary spent on 
campaign work exceeded this estimate, but the Committee feels 
three days is a reasonable and conservative estimate 
considering the uncertainties in the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \354\Exhibit 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee also found the Legislative Director, District 
Director and Staff Assistant each spent at least one full day's 
worth of work on political activities. The Legislative Director 
attended the Republican National Convention without taking 
leave.\355\ The Staff Assistant acknowledged she frequently 
booked political travel and drove the congresswoman to campaign 
events on official time. The District Director spent at least 
one entire day assisting with the filming of a campaign 
advertisement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \355\The Legislative Director also spent substantial time on debate 
preparation and assisted with mailing the leadership packet. The 
Committee received conflicting evidence regarding the extent to which 
this work was done on his own time; accordingly, the Committee has 
adopted a particularly conservative estimate of his use of official 
time in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has calculated the daily rate of pay for each 
of these seven employees based on their 2012 salaries, as 2012 
is the year when most of the clear violations of the rules and 
laws relating to misuse of official resources for campaign 
purposes took place.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Total Min.
                                                              Average 2012      Estimated Min.     Official Pay
                         Employee                            Daily Pay Rate   Days Campaign Work   for  Campaign
                                                                                On Official Time       Work
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Deutsch...........................................          $458.33                    5        $2,291.65
Communications Director..................................          $225.72                    5        $1,128.60
Press Secretary..........................................          $139.81                    3          $419.43
New Media Director.......................................          $250.77                    3          $752.31
Legislative Director.....................................          $282.93                    1          $282.93
District Director........................................          $260.42                    1          $260.42
Staff Assistant..........................................           $77.78                    1           $77.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on its conservative estimates, the Committee finds that 
Representative Rodgers is required to reimburse the Treasury 
the sum of the total minimum official pay for campaign work 
calculated in the chart above for these seven employees, or 
$5,213.12.
    This is by necessity an inexact approach. Some of these 
employees have spent more official staff time on campaign 
activities than others, but the Committee believes that, on 
average, this is a fair and reasonable estimate that takes into 
account the uncertainty created by a lack of adequate record-
keeping. There are also employees not captured in this chart 
who also appear to have performed campaign work on official 
time, including individuals who served as the congresswoman's 
Chief of Staff, Press Secretary, and Staff Assistant in other 
years.

3. MRA Funds for Travel Expenses

    According to information provided by Representative 
Rodgers, the total cost of flights, hotels and expenses for the 
Press Secretary's April 2012 trip to the district was 
$1,515.96, and for her November 2012 trip to the district was 
$846.87.\356\ Those costs were paid for with official funds. As 
discussed above, the Committee found that the weight of the 
evidence indicates these trips were primarily campaign-related. 
Accordingly, the Committee found that Representative Rodgers 
must reimburse the Treasury the sum of the costs associated 
with that travel, or $2,362.83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \356\Exhibit 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Total Recommended Reimbursement

    In sum, Representative Rodgers must repay $5,213.12 for the 
misuse of official staff time and $2,362.83 for the misuse of 
MRA funds for travel expenses. For all of her improper use of 
official resources, the Committee found that Representative 
Rodgers must reimburse the U.S. Treasury the sum of the above-
recommended amounts, totaling $7,575.95. Because the official 
resources were used for the benefit of her campaign, those 
funds may be repaid from Representative Rodgers' campaign 
account.

  B. REPRESENTATIVE RODGERS' CONDUCT MERITS REPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE

    The Committee concluded that the sum of all of the 
violations discussed previously is sufficient to warrant a 
reproval by the Committee. The conduct discussed above 
represents a misappropriation of House funds for campaign and 
political activities, in violation of federal law and House 
rules. Representative Rodgers' inappropriate compensation of 
consultants also ran afoul of House rules and regulations. The 
pervasive and years-long nature of this misconduct is 
particularly alarming. Based on the totality of misconduct, the 
Committee also found Representative Rodgers violated House Rule 
XXIII, clauses 1 and 2.
    The Committee has previously reproved Members for failure 
to exercise reasonable care,\357\ including for inattention to 
the rules and regulations governing the retention of 
contractors, and inadequate supervision of staff's work that 
resulted in the misuse of official resources.\358\ In this 
case, for more than five years, Representative Rodgers ran 
offices that showed indifference at best to the rules governing 
how official and unofficial resources can be used by Members 
and their staff. Had Representative Rodgers herself regularly 
directed staff to misuse official resources or unofficial 
office accounts, a more severe sanction may have been 
appropriate.\359\ While Representative Rodgers may not have 
been aware of the full extent to which her offices were not in 
compliance with House rules, laws and other standards of 
conduct, she failed to exercise the care that is expected of 
Members to ensure such compliance. Her offices were, in a word, 
sloppy. As the head of two offices entrusted with sizeable 
budgets comprised of public funds, she should have done better. 
The Committee therefore has decided to issue this Report 
publicly reproving Representative Rodgers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \357\See Young.
    \358\See Gutierrez.
    \359\See, e.g., Richardson at 15 (recommending reprimand for 
conduct involving compelling official staff members to perform campaign 
work, using official resources for campaign purposes, using official 
resources for personal purposes, and obstructing the Committee's 
investigation); see also Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Rep. Maxine 
Waters, H. Rept. 112-690, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. 498-501 (2012) (letter 
of reproval to House employee, noting that ``[a]s the Chief of Staff 
for Representative Waters, it was incumbent upon [him] to uphold the 
House rules, laws, regulations and other standards of conduct.''); 
Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of the 
Investigation into Officially Connected Travel of House Members to 
Attend the Carib News Foundation Multinational Business Conferences in 
2007 and 2008, H. Rept. 111-422, 111th Cong. 2d Sess. 137 (admonishing 
staffer for improper influence and unauthorized release of information 
in connection with Committee review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has also previously reproved House employees 
for their roles in misusing House resources, particularly where 
those employees had a role in directing other staff to engage 
in misconduct.\360\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \360\See Richardson at 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this case, Mr. Deutsch was a ubiquitous presence in all 
aspects of the Committee's review. He had reason to know that 
staff was using official resources for campaign and political 
work, and was himself directly involved in the use of staff 
time, congressional office space, and other official resources 
for campaign purposes. He set a tone in the office that enabled 
a general disregard for the proper use of official or campaign 
resources. He also oversaw Mr. Shore's compensation. Most 
significantly, he was a barrier to Representative Rodgers' own 
awareness of her staff's noncompliance with ethics 
restrictions.
    Mr. Shore was also responsible for some of the most 
egregious infringements in Representative Rodgers' offices. The 
Committee's record demonstrates that he sought to obtain 
compensation for his blurred roles as a Conference employee, 
Conference consultant, and campaign consultant, from whatever 
source had available funds without regard for applicable laws, 
rules and regulations, often leading to the impermissible use 
of official resources or the impermissible private subsidy of 
official work. Furthermore, Mr. Shore acted contrary to the 
spirit and letter of the rules and laws intended to prevent 
conflicts of interest.
    Although Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Shore are no longer House 
employees, and thus no longer within the Committee's 
jurisdiction, the Committee takes this opportunity to remind 
all House employees that their actions while employed in a 
congressional office are also subject to the Code of Official 
Conduct and other applicable rules and laws.

                             V. CONCLUSION

    The extensive record compiled by the Committee in this 
matter demonstrates that the offices of Representative Rodgers 
frequently exhibited an indifference to the laws, rules and 
regulations relating to the use of official and unofficial 
resources. This indifference led to myriad instances of 
resources being used inappropriately. While in some of those 
instances, the misuse appeared to be a minor deviation from 
expected conduct, at other times the impropriety was more 
severe. Taken as a whole, the abuses reviewed by the Committee 
add up to a concerning pattern over the course of more than 
five years.
    While the Committee recognized that Representative Rodgers 
was not aware of the full extent of misconduct discussed in 
this Report, she still bears responsibility for the conduct in 
her office, as she herself has recognized. The Committee notes 
that Representative Rodgers has fully cooperated with the 
Committee's review, accepted its conclusions, and taken steps 
to improve her office's compliance with relevant House rules, 
laws and other standards of conduct.
    Based on her violations of House rules, laws, and other 
standards of conduct, the Committee has determined to reprove 
Representative Rodgers and finds that she must reimburse the 
U.S. Treasury in the amount of $7,575.95 for the misuse of 
official resources. The Committee hopes that this Report will 
also encourage all Members to evaluate the safeguards they have 
in place to discourage the misuse of official and unofficial 
resources by their congressional staff.
    Upon the publication of this Report and Representative 
Rodgers' reimbursement of funds to the U.S. Treasury, the 
Committee will consider this matter closed.

           VII. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C)

    The Committee made no special oversight findings in this 
Report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is 
authorized by any measure in this Report.




              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                            [all]