[House Report 114-643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress }					{ Report

 2d Session    }         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES       { 114-643                                                             
_____________________________________________________________________
                                                                                 
                 IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING 
                  TO REPRESENTATIVE VERNON G. BUCHANAN

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


          June 24, 2016.--Referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed
                         
                                ___________
                                
                                
                           U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-006                           WASHINGTON : 2016                           
________________________________________________________________________                                
                     
                          
                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
  Chairman                             Ranking Member
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana             TED DEUTCH, Florida
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

                              
                              REPORT STAFF

              Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
            Patrick M. McMullen, Director of Investigations
           Clifford C. Stoddard, Jr., Counsel to the Chairman
            Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member

                     Molly N. McCarty, Investigator
                   Michael Koren, Investigative Clerk
                         
                         
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Ethics,
                                     Washington, DC, June 24, 2016.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of Rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith 
transmit the attached report, ``In the Matter of Allegations 
Relating to Representative Vernon G. Buchanan.''
            Sincerely,
                                   Charles W. Dent,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez,
                                           Ranking Member.
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________
                                                                   Page
  I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................1
 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY...............................................3
III. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT...6
 IV. BACKGROUND.......................................................6
          A. BUSINESS DISPUTES BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVE BUCHANAN 
              AND MR. KAZRAN, AND THE DRAFT AFFIDAVIT............     6
          B. ALLEGATIONS OF REPRESENTATIVE BUCHANAN'S INVOLVEMENT 
              WITH, AND KNOWLEDGE OF, CONDUIT CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
              VBFC...............................................    10
            1. SUNCOAST FORD (SCF)...............................    10
            2. VENICE NISSAN DODGE (VND).........................    11
            3. HYUNDAI OF NORTH JACKSONVILLE (HNJ)...............    12
  V. FINDINGS........................................................16
          A. 52 U.S.C. Sec.  30122...............................    16
          B. TITLE 18............................................    17
          C. HOUSE RULE XXIII, CLAUSES 1 AND 2...................    22
 VI. CONCLUSION......................................................25
VII. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C)....................25
     APPENDIX A: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
     ETHICS (REVIEW NO. 11-7565).....................................26



 
   IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE VERNON G. 
                                BUCHANAN

                                _______
                                

   June 24, 2016.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

                Mr. Dent, 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

    Since 2012, the Committee has investigated allegations 
regarding Representative Vernon G. Buchanan and his campaign, 
as well as his interactions with an investigation by the 
Federal Election Commission (FEC) of those allegations. 
Following its investigation, the Committee concluded that there 
is insufficient evidence to support a finding of any violation 
by Representative Buchanan. This Report details the Committee's 
findings and conclusions.
    On January 27, 2012, the Office of Congressional Ethics 
(OCE) transmitted a Report and Findings (Referral) relating to 
Representative Buchanan to the Committee. OCE's Referral 
recommended that the Committee further review allegations that 
Representative Buchanan ``attempted to influence the testimony 
of a witness in a proceeding before the FEC'' by coercing the 
witness to sign a false affidavit in violation of federal law 
and House Rules. OCE's Referral provided additional information 
about the allegation that Representative Buchanan attempted to 
improperly influence the testimony of his former business 
partner, Sam Kazran, by presenting Mr. Kazran with an affidavit 
for his signature which included false statements about 
wrongdoing with respect to Representative Buchanan's 
campaign.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\A referral from the OCE to the Committee may include a 
recommendation that the Committee further review an allegation or 
dismiss it and provide the Committee with certain types of information 
regarding the allegation, but not the names of any cooperative 
witnesses or any conclusions regarding the validity of the allegations 
or the guilt or innocence of the individual who is the subject of the 
review. See H. Res. 895 Sec.  1(c)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee agreed with OCE's recommendation and did 
further review the allegations in its Referral. On May 9, 2012, 
the Committee published OCE's Referral and a response from 
Representative Buchanan, and announced that the Committee would 
investigate the matter under Committee Rule 18(a).
    In addition to the allegations regarding improperly 
influencing a witness, the Committee examined a broader range 
of allegations than the allegations for which OCE recommended 
further review. The Committee investigated allegations relating 
to Representative Buchanan's campaign, including whether 
several car dealerships partly owned by Representative Buchanan 
illegally reimbursed their employees for contributions to 
Representative Buchanan's House campaigns and whether 
Representative Buchanan himself may have been aware of the 
unlawful reimbursements at the time they occurred, or had some 
role in directing or approving of them.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Some of the allegations reviewed by the Committee occurred prior 
to the 111th Congress, prior to the Committee's general investigative 
jurisdiction, which includes the current and three previous Congresses. 
However, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(3) and Committee Rule 
18(d), the Committee voted to determine that these allegations were 
directly related to alleged violations that occurred within the 
Committee's general jurisdiction and did investigate those allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Together, these allegations were the subject of review by 
four different entities--the Committee, OCE, FEC, and 
Department of Justice (DOJ)--as well as related civil 
litigation in state court. In the course of its investigation 
the Committee reviewed over 6,000 pages of materials, including 
statements by 22 witnesses. Much of this material was generated 
through the course of the related investigations and 
proceedings. The Committee also interviewed Representative 
Buchanan, who agreed to appear before the Committee for a 
voluntary interview.
    The FEC investigated the allegations of unlawful 
reimbursements and the allegations concerning Representative 
Buchanan's knowledge of, and involvement with, the corporate 
reimbursement of campaign contributions, and the allegation 
that he attempted to influence Mr. Karzan's testimony before 
the FEC. The FEC closed its investigation as it related to 
Representative Buchanan on February 1, 2011, taking no further 
action against him.
    Additionally, beginning in late 2011, the DOJ investigated 
similar allegations relating to Representative Buchanan. The 
DOJ closed its investigation around September 2012.
    The allegation related to attempting to improperly 
influence the testimony of Mr. Kazran was also one of several 
allegations that arose in a civil suit between Mr. Kazran and 
Representative Buchanan in Florida state court. On November 10, 
2014, at the close of Mr. Kazran's case-in-chief, the Florida 
Circuit Court for Sarasota County directed a verdict in favor 
of Representative Buchanan with regard to the allegation that 
he improperly influenced testimony.
    Finally, OCE reviewed the allegation that Representative 
Buchanan attempted to improperly influence the testimony of Mr. 
Kazran before the FEC and ultimately recommended that the 
Committee further review that allegation.
    As is true with all of its investigations, the Committee 
conducted an independent review without deferring to the 
findings or conclusions of any other entity. In this matter, 
the Committee also reviewed the allegations that were the 
subject of proceedings before the FEC, DOJ, and in the Florida 
Circuit Court for Sarasota County.
    Consistent with the resolutions in the matters before the 
FEC and DOJ, as well as in the related civil litigation, the 
Committee concluded that there is insufficient evidence to 
sustain any of the aforementioned allegations or to warrant any 
action against Representative Buchanan. Specifically, the 
Committee concluded that three car dealerships partly owned by 
Representative Buchanan did, in fact, illegally reimburse their 
employees for contributions to Representative Buchanan's House 
campaigns. However, the Committee found that the evidence is 
insufficient to conclude that Representative Buchanan himself 
was aware of the unlawful reimbursements when they were made, 
or had any role in directing or approving of them. The 
Committee further concluded that the evidence is insufficient 
to find that Representative Buchanan attempted to improperly 
influence the testimony of Mr. Kazran before the FEC. However, 
as discussed further in this Report, the Committee cautions 
Representative Buchanan to exercise more diligence over affairs 
related to his campaign.
    Accordingly, the Committee unanimously voted to release 
this Report and take no further action in this matter.

                         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    As noted above, the issues discussed in this Report were 
the subject of other investigations and hearings. On August 19, 
2008, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 
(CREW) filed a complaint with the FEC against Representative 
Buchanan, as well as a number of corporations with which he was 
affiliated and officers and employees of those corporations, 
alleging violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
(FECA). Specifically, CREW alleged that employees at two car 
dealerships owned by Representative Buchanan were compelled to 
donate to Representative Buchanan's campaign committee, Vern 
Buchanan For Congress (VBFC), and that their campaign 
contributions were later unlawfully reimbursed from corporate 
funds. On October 6, 2008, Representative Buchanan disclosed to 
the FEC that VBFC may have unknowingly violated the FECA by 
accepting contributions from employees of another car 
dealership owned by Representative Buchanan, who were then 
reimbursed by the dealership. While these allegations were 
similar in nature to the CREW allegations, CREW's complaint 
related to different contributions and corporations. The FEC 
investigated both CREW's complaint and Representative 
Buchanan's self-report, including the allegations concerning 
Representative Buchanan's knowledge of, and involvement with, 
the corporate reimbursement of campaign contributions. The FEC 
closed the investigation as it related to Representative 
Buchanan on February 1, 2011, taking no further action against 
him.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\The FEC continued to investigate allegations of conduit 
contributions by other corporate entities and individuals, even after 
it concluded its investigation of Representative Buchanan himself. The 
FEC sued Mr. Kazran (eventually obtaining a settlement against him and 
a default judgment against the related corporate entity), and reached 
conciliation agreements with a number of other individuals and 
entities. See infra Part IV.B. The FEC appears to have concluded all 
business related to this investigation in March 2012. Additionally, in 
2010, the FEC undertook an unrelated investigation of contributions to 
Representative Buchanan's campaign that were reimbursed by a company 
not owned by or directly affiliated with Representative Buchanan; 
Representative Buchanan was not a party to that proceeding. See Federal 
Election Commission, In the Matter of Timothy F. Mobley, et al., MUR 
6516. The FEC found that the companies in question, which were also 
targeted by a related DOJ investigation, knowingly reimbursed 
contributions to Representative Buchanan's campaign, and the FEC 
entered into conciliation agreements with those companies and the 
individuals who owned and controlled them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 24, 2011, CREW wrote to the DOJ, requesting an 
investigation into not only the alleged violations of FECA 
previously disposed of by the FEC, but also a series of alleged 
crimes including obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and 
bribery, related to a draft affidavit prepared for Mr. 
Kazran.\4\ Representative Buchanan's attorneys acknowledged a 
DOJ investigation, but that investigation was subsequently 
closed without formal charges.\5\ On December 18, 2013, CREW 
filed suit against the DOJ under the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA), seeking the release of its investigative file in that 
matter.\6\ The DOJ ultimately released certain documents 
regarding Representative Buchanan to CREW, and the parties 
settled their suit on June 29, 2015.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See Letter from CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan to FBI 
Assistant Director James W. McJunkin (Aug. 24, 2011), available at 
http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-files-fbi-
complaint-against-rep-vern-buchanan.
    \5\DOJ has never publicly acknowledged a date by which it ended its 
investigation, publicly stating only that it had in fact closed the 
investigation. See CREW v. DOJ, No. 13-cv-2000 Docket #2 para. (Answer) 
(Mar. 6, 2014). But media reports indicate that this decision may have 
been made as early as September 2012. See, e.g., Adam C. Smith, Justice 
Department closes investigations against Vern Buchanan with no charges, 
Tampa Bay Times (Sept. 11, 2012), available at http://www.tampabay.com/
blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/justice-department-closes-
investigations-against-vern-buchanan-w-no-charges.
    \6\CREW v. DOJ, Docket #1 (Dec. 18, 2013).
    \7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 3, 2011, OCE notified the Committee that it had 
initiated a preliminary review of allegations that 
Representative Buchanan ``may have attempted to influence a 
witness to sign a false affidavit related to an FEC 
investigation of campaign contributions to his campaign 
committee.''\8\ On October 31, 2011, OCE notified the Committee 
that it commenced a second-phase review of these allegations. 
On January 27, 2012, OCE sent its Referral to the Committee, 
recommending further review of the allegations. OCE's Referral 
found substantial reason to believe that a single paragraph of 
the draft affidavit may have been false, and that consequently, 
Representative Buchanan may have violated three separate 
criminal statutes.\9\ OCE also included in its Referral a 
section noting that, depending on the facts surrounding the 
FECA allegations, additional paragraphs in the draft affidavit 
``may'' be false,\10\ but it is unclear as to whether OCE found 
substantial reason to believe those allegations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\The FECA violations investigated by the FEC occurred from 2005 
through 2007; OCE's investigative authority does not extend to 
violations that occurred prior to 2008. See H. Res. 895 Sec. 4.
    \9\OCE found that a number of witnesses, including Representative 
Buchanan, had failed to fully cooperate with OCE's review, and 
accordingly noted in its Referral that it was permitted to draw a 
negative inference from that lack of cooperation. See OCE's Referral 
para. 87. Despite this, OCE ``judged the evidence adduced to be more 
than sufficient to support its determination,'' irrespective of such an 
inference. Id.
    \10\See OCE's Referral para. 70-86.
    \11\Subsequent correspondence from OCE stated that ``OCE did not 
adopt Mr. Kazran's statement that Representative Buchanan directed him 
to reimburse campaign contributions.'' Letter from David Skaggs and 
William Frenzel to Chairman and Ranking Member of Committee on Ethics 
at 4 (Apr. 2, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some of the allegations in this matter were also the 
subject of a civil suit between Mr. Kazran and Representative 
Buchanan in the Florida Circuit Court for Sarasota County. 
Representative Buchanan's holding company filed suit against 
Mr. Kazran in Duval County on September 4, 2008.\12\ The suit 
alleged that Mr. Kazran had failed to repay a $2.5 million 
loan. In turn, Mr. Kazran filed suit against Representative 
Buchanan in Sarasota County on September 25, 2008. His 
complaint was largely based on claims that Representative 
Buchanan had engaged in fraud related to his business dealings 
with Mr. Kazran, but the complaint also included allegations 
that Representative Buchanan abused the legal process by 
attempting to force Mr. Kazran to sign a false affidavit.\13\ 
It appears based on the dockets for both cases that 
Representative Buchanan eventually chose not to pursue his 
claims in Duval County, instead countersuing Mr. Kazran in 
Sarasota County and litigating his claims there. Representative 
Buchanan won summary judgment motions on some of the claims 
against him; Mr. Kazran's remaining claims, as well as 
Representative Buchanan's own causes of action, went to trial 
on November 3, 2014. On November 10, 2014, at the close of Mr. 
Kazran's case-in-chief, the court directed a verdict in favor 
of Representative Buchanan. On December 5, 2014, following a 
jury verdict, the court entered judgment in favor of 
Representative Buchanan on his own claims against Mr. Kazran, 
and ordered Mr. Kazran to pay Representative Buchanan $2.5 
million plus interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\See 1099 Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Gwinnett, LLC, No. 2008 CA11480 
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty.).
    \13\Kazran v. Buchanan, 2008 CA 15448 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Sarasota 
Cty.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A number of factors caused the Committee's review of these 
allegations to take longer than normal, beginning with the 
convoluted set of parallel proceedings described above. 
Exacerbating that complication, Representative Buchanan 
initially responded to the Committee's request for information 
by requesting that the Committee defer its inquiry at least 
until the conclusion of DOJ's investigation, and then, once DOJ 
had closed the matter, Representative Buchanan requested that 
the Committee close its own inquiry with no further 
investigation based solely on DOJ's decision. The Committee 
declined to do so, and continued its own investigation. These 
requests, and the Committee's consideration of them, resulted 
in a delay of at least fifteen months. The Committee faced 
further delays as it attempted to obtain evidence collected in 
the other inquiries described above.
    As noted above, the Committee reviewed over 6,000 pages of 
materials, including statements by 22 witnesses. Much of this 
material was generated through the course of the parallel 
investigations described above.\14\ The Committee also 
interviewed Representative Buchanan, who agreed to appear 
before the Committee for a voluntary interview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\The Committee determined that this information was sufficient 
to dispose of this matter, and chose not to re-interview certain 
witnesses who had already been questioned, including Mr. Kazran. In 
part, this determination was based on independent concerns about Mr. 
Kazran's credibility, as outlined infra at Part IV. Additionally, the 
Committee's review of the extant testimony did not reveal sufficient 
evidentiary gaps to warrant duplicative interviews. Finally, because 
the Committee's determination rested on a legal conclusion regarding 
the elements of the offenses, the bulk of the outstanding factual 
questions were not relevant to its final conclusion. See infra Part 
V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  III. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

    A number of criminal statutes prohibit actions that 
intentionally interfere with ongoing government investigations. 
First, 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(3) prohibits bribing a witness, which 
is the act of corruptly giving, offering, or promising anything 
of value to any witness with the intent to influence the 
witness' testimony. Second, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 prohibits 
persons from corruptly obstructing an executive branch agency 
proceeding. Obstruction of a proceeding is defined as ``do[ing] 
something to sway or change or prevent any action likely to be 
taken in the . . . proceeding.''\15\ Finally, 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1512(b)(2)(A) prohibits witness tampering, which includes, 
among other things, corruptly persuading a witness in an 
official proceeding to fail to offer testimony, or to offer 
testimony that is false. An ``official proceeding'' includes 
agency proceedings as well as those in court.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\11th Cir. Federal Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions at 347.
    \16\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 52 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 30101 et seq., imposes a number of restrictions on 
campaign contributions, including a prohibition on making a 
campaign contribution in the name of another person.\17\ 
Contributions that violate FECA Section 30122 are sometimes 
described as ``reimbursed'' or ``conduit'' contributions. 
Violations of Section 30122 are punishable based on the 
aggregate amount of offending contributions; contributions over 
$2,000 are misdemeanors punishable by a fine and up to a year 
imprisonment, while contributions over $25,000 are felonies 
punishable by a fine and up to five years imprisonment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Previously codified as 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 431 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 2 state that ``[a] 
Member . . . 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 . 
. .'' (emphasis added).

                             IV. BACKGROUND


 A. BUSINESS DISPUTES BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVE BUCHANAN AND MR. KAZRAN, 
                        AND THE DRAFT AFFIDAVIT

    From at least 2005 through 2008, Representative Buchanan, 
either directly or through a corporation he owned--1099 
Management Company, LLC (1099 Management)--held an ownership 
interest in several car dealerships, including Venice Nissan 
Dodge (VND), Suncoast Ford (SCF), and Hyundai of North 
Jacksonville (HNJ).\18\ HNJ was, at the time relevant to this 
matter, a car dealership in Jacksonville, Florida. 
Representative Buchanan owned a majority stake in HNJ until 
2008, when he sold his interest to Mr. Kazran, who had been up 
to that point the president and minority owner of HNJ.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See Representative Buchanan's Financial Disclosure Statement 
for January 1, 2004-April 30, 2006 (filed May 12, 2006).
    \19\See FEC v. Kazran, No. 10-cv-1155, Docket # 1 at Sec. 16 (M.D. 
Fla. Dec. 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the summer of 2008, Representative Buchanan's business 
relationship with Mr. Kazran began to deteriorate. The fallout 
from that relationship was then litigated on a continuous basis 
and in a number of forums until at least late 2014. To 
summarize, when Representative Buchanan sold his interest in 
HNJ to Mr. Kazran, he loaned Mr. Kazran the funds used to 
purchase his equity interest, essentially converting his 
ownership in HNJ into a loan to Mr. Kazran.\20\ In 2008, Mr. 
Kazran sought additional funds from Representative Buchanan to 
purchase Kia dealerships in Jacksonville, which Representative 
Buchanan provided in the form of a $2.5 million personal 
unsecured loan.\21\ Representative Buchanan alleged that Mr. 
Kazran stopped repaying this loan in the summer of 2008.\22\ 
Representative Buchanan was concerned that Mr. Kazran might 
declare bankruptcy, and he began negotiating a settlement that 
involved paying Mr. Kazran millions of additional dollars in 
exchange for ownership of other dealership properties.\23\ Mr. 
Kazran, for his part, claimed that Representative Buchanan 
breached a variety of agreements between them and their related 
businesses.\24\ Representative Buchanan and Mr. Kazran ended up 
filing suit against each other in at least two state 
courts.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\FEC, In the Matter of Vern Buchanan et al., MUR 6054 
(hereinafter ``FEC Investigation''), Deposition of Representative 
Buchanan.
    \21\Id.
    \22\Id.
    \23\Id. It is worth noting that in 2008, a state court in Georgia 
held Mr. Kazran in contempt based on actions taken after a business he 
controlled entered receivership. See infra Part IV.B.3.
    \24\See generally Kazran v. Buchanan, 2008 CA 15448 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 
Sarasota Cty.).
    \25\See id.; see also 1099 Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Gwinnett, LLC., 16 
2008 CA 011480 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As discussed more fully below at Section IV.B.3., the 
evidence shows that before the breakdown in the relationship 
between Mr. Kazran and Representative Buchanan, over the course 
of two election cycles in 2006 and 2008, Mr. Kazran instructed 
HNJ employees and other individuals to contribute to VBFC.\26\ 
Mr. Kazran subsequently directed the HNJ controller to write 
checks drawn from HNJ accounts to those individuals to 
reimburse their contributions. The reimbursed contributions 
totaled $67,900.\27\ On September 8, 2008, while the parties 
were discussing the resolution of their legal disputes, Mr. 
Kazran sent an email to John Tosch--the CEO of Representative 
Buchanan's company, 1099 Management, LLC--stating that HNJ had 
reimbursed its employees for their contributions to VBFC:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\FEC Investigation, General Counsel's Report #7 at 4-5.
    \27\Id.

          This is the 1st set of [reimbursement] checks, there 
        are more to follow, It [sic] gives me great regret to 
        have done this for Vern when he doesn't even hesitates 
        [sic] for a second to sue me and my wife over 20k. 
        Maybe he can consider taking part of this 80k+ as one 
        month of payment so my wife doesn't cry out of fear of 
        loosing [sic] our home.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\OCE's Referral, Ex. 8.

    This September 8, 2008 email appears to have been the first 
clear indication to Representative Buchanan that Mr. Kazran had 
directed HNJ to reimburse contributions its employees made to 
VBFC. However, there had been prior communications between Mr. 
Kazran, Representative Buchanan, and their respective 
associates regarding campaign contributions generally. On 
August 26, 2008, Mr. Kazran emailed Representative Buchanan to 
discuss their legal dispute, and noted that he was ``the only 
one in our group that has donated over 80k'' to VBFC.\29\ On 
August 27, 2008, Joshua Farid, formerly the CFO of HNJ and Mr. 
Kazran's brother-in-law, wrote to Mr. Tosch and referred to the 
support that ``the dealership'' had provided to Representative 
Buchanan's campaign, ``to a tune of $80K.''\30\ While neither 
of these communications clearly alleged that HNJ had reimbursed 
its employees for their contributions to Representative 
Buchanan's campaign, they might have alerted Representative 
Buchanan or his associates and counsel that something was 
amiss.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\OCE's Referral para.para. 60, 61.
    \30\Id.
    \31\For example, a review of Mr. Kazran's contributions to VBFC 
would indicate that he did not make $80,000 in contributions to the 
campaign in his own name, which could raise the question of what the 
``over $80K'' figure referred to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 2, 2008--approximately three weeks after Mr. 
Kazran's September 8, 2008 email to Mr. Tosch--Mike Lindell, 
the attorney representing Representative Buchanan in his civil 
dispute with Mr. Kazran,\32\ transmitted a Term Sheet outlining 
a proposed settlement of the outstanding disputes between Mr. 
Kazran and Representative Buchanan. Representative Buchanan's 
signature appears on this Term Sheet, but during his testimony 
before the Committee, he could not recall signing the document, 
and stated that he may have signed it without reading it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\This attorney is not the same attorney that represented 
Representative Buchanan or VBFC in the FEC Investigation, OCE's 
inquiry, or the Committee's review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Much of this Term Sheet was similar to previous settlement 
proposals between the parties, insofar as it proposed that 
Representative Buchanan and Mr. Kazran would settle their 
disputes, in exchange for which Representative Buchanan would 
purchase certain dealership assets from Mr. Kazran and help him 
pay off obligations at another dealership, through a cash 
payment of $2.9 million.\33\ Unlike the previous proposals, 
however, this Term Sheet included a draft affidavit regarding 
the reimbursed campaign contributions.\34\ The draft affidavit 
was prepared for Mr. Kazran's signature, and accordingly refers 
to him in the first person.\35\ It stated that ``[d]uring the 
course of tense and somewhat hostile negotiations between my 
lawyers and me, and representatives for [Representative] 
Buchanan, I advised a representative of [Representative] 
Buchanan that one or more of the dealerships of which I was in 
operational control had reimbursed certain individuals who had 
contributed to [VBFC].''\36\ It went on to state that 
``[b]efore September 2008 neither I, nor to my knowledge any 
other person who had ever advised [Representative] Buchanan or 
any of his representatives had any information that [these 
dealerships] reimbursed certain individuals for contributions 
made to [VBFC].''\37\ The affidavit further stated that Mr. 
Kazran had not heard Representative Buchanan threaten 
discrimination or reprisal to dealership employees for failing 
to make a contribution, had not heard Representative Buchanan 
approve of plans to reimburse contributions, and had not been 
advised by any third party that Representative Buchanan was 
aware of plans to reimburse contributions.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\OCE's Referral, Ex. 1.
    \34\Id.
    \35\Id.
    \36\Id.
    \37\Id. (emphasis added).
    \38\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The precise nature of Representative Buchanan's involvement 
in the process of either constructing the draft affidavit or 
attempting to get Mr. Kazran to sign it is very much in 
dispute. Representative Buchanan claimed in testimony before 
the FEC and the Committee that he had not seen the draft 
affidavit at the time it was provided to Mr. Kazran, although 
it was attached to the settlement term sheet that he 
signed.\39\ Indeed, during his testimony before the Committee, 
Representative Buchanan stated that he could not remember ever 
having reviewed the affidavit, despite it being a central part 
of both the FEC and OCE investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\FEC Investigation, Deposition of Representative Buchanan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All of Mr. Kazran's written communications regarding the 
reimbursed contributions and the settlement were directed at 
either Mr. Tosch or Representative Buchanan's litigation 
counsel, and not to Representative Buchanan directly. However, 
Mr. Kazran stated to OCE that he had dinner with Representative 
Buchanan and Mr. Tosch in early October 2008, and at that 
dinner the two men pressured Mr. Kazran to sign the draft 
affidavit. Representative Buchanan, in his testimony before the 
FEC and the Committee, denied ever speaking directly to Mr. 
Kazran about the affidavit, and noted that Mr. Kazran stated in 
two emails that Mr. Kazran ``attempted to speak with 
[Representative Buchanan] directly but he did not answer,''\40\ 
and ``[a]t no time [did Representative Buchanan and I] 
discuss[] signing documentation that has nothing to do with our 
agreement [sic].''\41\ Mr. Tosch, for his part, denied ever 
discussing the affidavit in person with Mr. Kazran, and stated 
that all of his participation in negotiations during this 
period consisted of either conversations between the two sides' 
attorneys, or unsolicited and unreciprocated contact from Mr. 
Kazran to Mr. Tosch, not the other way around.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\VGB-HCE 004296.
    \41\VGB-HCE 004312.
    \42\FEC Investigation, Deposition of John Tosch. Representative 
Buchanan noted in his testimony that the time period in question 
included his wedding anniversary (during which he would have been 
unavailable for a dinner with Mr. Kazran). FEC Investigation, 
Deposition of Representative Buchanan. Additionally, Representative 
Buchanan recorded votes on bills in the House on the evening of October 
2, 2008, and on the afternoon of October 3, 2008. 154 Cong. Rec. 
H10671-05 (2008) (Roll Call No. 676); 154 Cong. Rec. H10805 (Roll Call 
No. 681).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the other hand, it is clear that Representative Buchanan 
knew by at least October 2008 of the allegation that HNJ 
reimbursed its employees for contributions to VBFC, as 
evidenced by a voicemail message that Representative Buchanan 
appears to have left for Mr. Kazran. While the transcript of 
the voicemail does not indicate its date, Mr. Kazran told OCE 
that he received and recorded the voicemail after he received 
the draft affidavit on October 2, 2008, and after he allegedly 
had a conversation during which Representative Buchanan urged 
Mr. Kazran to sign the draft affidavit.\43\ In the voicemail, 
Representative Buchanan did not specifically discuss the draft 
affidavit, but on one occasion he did assert that Mr. Kazran 
faced legal liability for any reimbursed contributions, while 
at the same time denying his own involvement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\OCE's Referral, Ex. 2 Sec. Sec. 31-33.

         I think the threatening of the political stuff and all 
        that, you got more liability than you know if you start 
        telling people that you reimbursed people, because 
        technically you have that liability. All I told you, 
        and I've always made it clear is that you can't 
        reimburse people. They've got to give it under their 
        free will. You know that. At 12, 18 points, we're going 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        to win the election anyway.\44\

    \44\FEC Investigation, Deposition of Sam Kazran. Representative 
Buchanan appears to have left a second voicemail message for Mr. 
Kazran, which did not directly mention reimbursed contributions, and 
instead focused on the private business disputes between him and Mr. 
Kazran, encouraging him to agree to a settlement. Nothing in the 
transcript of the recorded voicemails indicated the dates on which they 
occurred, but it is worth noting that by October 6, 2008, the draft 
affidavit had been removed from the proposed Term Sheet.

    Mr. Kazran ultimately refused to sign the draft affidavit, 
and on October 6, 2008, VBFC filed a self-report to FEC 
disclosing the improper contributions from HNJ and asking for 
guidance on how to dispose of those funds.\45\ VBFC ultimately 
disgorged the contributions, consistent with FEC's 
recommendation. Also on October 6, 2008, Representative 
Buchanan's litigation counsel recirculated a revised Term 
Sheet, which did not contain the draft affidavit.\46\ On 
October 16, 2008, Representative Buchanan's litigation counsel 
revised the Term Sheet again and sent it to Mr. Kazran's 
attorneys; this version still excluded the draft affidavit, but 
increased Representative Buchanan's proposed cash payout to $3 
million. In the end, no agreement was reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\See FEC Investigation, Sua Sponte Submission from VBFC (Oct. 6, 
2008).
    \46\VGB-HCE 004315-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The parties continued to litigate their dispute in Florida 
state court. Mr. Kazran included in subsequent versions of his 
civil complaint allegations related to the draft affidavit, 
among other allegations.\47\ Specifically, Mr. Kazran alleged 
that Representative Buchanan abused the legal process by 
attempting to force Mr. Kazran to sign a false affidavit. 
Ultimately, the court granted partial summary judgment in favor 
of Representative Buchanan for some of Mr. Kazran's claims, 
then entered a directed verdict against Mr. Kazran and in favor 
of Representative Buchanan on the rest of Mr. Kazran's 
claims.\48\ While that disposition indicated that the court had 
rejected Mr. Kazran's claims about the draft affidavit, the 
record does not make clear the court's legal or factual 
rationale for doing so. Representative Buchanan prevailed on 
his own claims against Mr. Kazran after a jury trial.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Kazran v. Buchanan (Aug. 10, 2012) (Third Amended Complaint).
    \48\Kazran v. Buchanan (Dec. 5, 2014) (Final Judgment).
    \49\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   B. ALLEGATIONS OF REPRESENTATIVE BUCHANAN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH, AND 
              KNOWLEDGE OF, CONDUIT CONTRIBUTIONS TO VBFC

1. Suncoast Ford (SCF)

    SCF was, at the time relevant to this matter, a car 
dealership in Port Richey, Florida. Representative Buchanan 
owned a majority stake in SCF, but was not involved in its day-
to-day operations; Gary Scarbrough was the operating minority 
partner. Four SCF officers and employees--Mr. Scarbrough, 
Kenneth Lybarger, Harold Glover, and M. Osman Ally--each 
contributed $4,600 to VBFC in March 2007 via personal 
check.\50\ According to Mr. Lybarger, SCF's controller, Mr. 
Scarbrough, subsequently directed him to cut checks from SCF's 
bank account to reimburse the four SCF officers and employees 
for their VBFC contributions.\51\ Mr. Scarbrough told the FEC 
that, while Representative Buchanan had asked him on a number 
of occasions to contribute to VBFC, he could recall very little 
about the reimbursements themselves.\52\ Eventually, an auditor 
who worked for Buchanan Automotive Group reviewed SCF's books 
and discovered the reimbursements. SCF then notified VBFC of 
the reimbursements, and VBFC refunded the contributions to the 
individuals in question.\53\ Mr. Scarbrough testified that, at 
the time he caused SCF to reimburse the individual 
contributions, he did not know that such reimbursement violated 
campaign finance laws, and that doing so was a ``mistake.''\54\ 
The FEC found, based on these uncontested facts, that SCF and 
Mr. Scarbrough had both knowingly violated 52 U.S.C. 30122, and 
directed SCF and Mr. Scarbrough to pay fines of $7,000 and 
$8,500, respectively.\55\ However, the FEC found no evidence 
that Representative Buchanan was involved in or aware of SCF's 
decision to reimburse its employees' contributions to VBFC.\56\ 
Representative Buchanan testified before the Committee that he 
was not involved in or aware of reimbursed contributions at SCF 
at the time they occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\See FEC Investigation, Conciliation Agreement with Gary 
Scarbrough at para.4 (Dec. 20, 2011).
    \51\See FEC Investigation, General Counsel's Report #10 at 3 (Apr. 
29, 2011).
    \52\See Id. at 4.
    \53\See FEC Investigation, Conciliation Agreement with Gary 
Scarbrough at para.8.
    \54\FEC Investigation, General Counsel's Report #10 at 6.
    \55\See FEC Investigation, Conciliation Agreement with SCF at VI 
(Dec. 20, 2011); FEC Investigation, Conciliation Agreement with Gary 
Scarbrough at VI.
    \56\FEC Investigation, General Counsel's Report #9 at 12, 15 (Jan. 
25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Venice Nissan Dodge (VND)

    VND was, at the time relevant to this matter, a car 
dealership in Venice, Florida. Representative Buchanan owned a 
majority stake in VND, but was not involved in its day-to-day 
operations, which were handled jointly by minority owner Shelby 
Curtsinger and general sales manager Donald Caldwell.\57\ On or 
about September 15 or 16, 2005, Caldwell met with VND employees 
Jack Prater, Carlo Bell, Jason Martin, Marvin White, and 
William Mullins, and gave each man $1,000 in cash.\58\ Mr. 
Caldwell obtained the funds he used for this distribution from 
the VND accounting office, and the funds were drawn from a VND 
bank account.\59\ Each of the five VND employees who received 
the $1,000 in cash contributed the same amount to VBFC through 
personal checks written within a day or two after they received 
the cash.\60\ Mr. Caldwell admitted that, around the same time 
he gave the $1,000 to each of the five VND employees, he 
discussed with each of them the possibility that they might 
contribute to VBFC.\61\ The import of that conversation, 
however, was a matter of some disagreement. Mr. Bell alleged 
that Mr. Caldwell had explained that the $1,000 was a 
reimbursement for donating to VBFC, and that when Mr. Bell 
objected, Mr. Caldwell asked him if he was ``on the team'' or 
not.\62\ Messrs. Prater, Martin, White, and Mullins, however, 
asserted that the bonuses were not connected to their 
contributions and that they gave to VBFC of their own free 
will.\63\ These four VND employees, as well as Mr. Caldwell, 
testified that the $1,000 cash payments were not unusual in the 
car sales business, and that they were paid to the VND 
employees for reaching certain performance targets.\64\ Despite 
this factual dispute, the FEC determined that there was 
probable cause to believe that the $1,000 cash payments, and 
the subsequent donations to VBFC, constituted a violation of 2 
U.S.C. 441f.\65\ While VND and Mr. Caldwell never admitted 
guilt or responsibility for the violations, they nevertheless 
agreed to pay a fine of $11,000, and to request that VBFC 
disgorge the $5,000 in question.\66\ VBFC disgorged those funds 
on October 7, 2010, by check to the U.S. Treasury. As was the 
case for the contributions for SCF, FEC found no evidence that 
Representative Buchanan was involved with or aware of VND's 
decision to reimburse its employees' contributions to VBFC.\67\ 
Representative Buchanan testified to the Committee that he was 
not involved in or aware of reimbursed contributions at VND at 
the time they occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\FEC Investigation, Conciliation Agreement with VND and Donald 
Caldwell at para.para.1-2 (Aug. 11, 2010).
    \58\Id. at para.12.
    \59\Id. at para.11.
    \60\Id. at para.13.
    \61\FEC Investigation, General Counsel's Report #4 at 3 (June 2, 
2010).
    \62\FEC Investigation, Complaint at Ex. A. David Padilla, a former 
VND employee, similarly alleged that he was approached with an offer to 
contribute to VBFC and be reimbursed by VND; Mr. Padilla stated that he 
refused to participate. See Id. at Ex. D.
    \63\See FEC Investigation, Statement of Reasons by Vice Chair 
Caroline C. Hunter at 4-5 (Dec. 19, 2011).
    \64\Id. at 4-5.
    \65\FEC Investigation, Conciliation Agreement with VND and Donald 
Caldwell at para.15.
    \66\Id. at V-VI. It is important to note that the FEC's vote to 
accept this agreement with VND and Mr. Caldwell was not unanimous--one 
Commissioner credited the testimony of Mr. Caldwell and the VND 
employees other than Mr. Bell and concluded that the evidence did not 
``establish probable cause that a violation did occur.'' FEC 
Investigation, Statement of Reasons by Vice Chair Caroline C. Hunter at 
7.
    \67\FEC Investigation, General Counsel's Report #9 at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Hyundai of North Jacksonville (HNJ)

    Similar to both SCF and VND, the FEC found that Mr. Kazran 
and HNJ had violated 52 U.S.C. 30122 by reimbursing HNJ 
employees for contributions to VBFC. However, unlike the other 
two dealerships, the FEC was unable to reach an agreement with 
Mr. Kazran in its ordinary process, and instead filed suit 
against him and HNJ in the United States District Court for the 
Middle District of Florida.\68\ Mr. Kazran never admitted 
liability for his actions, but did ultimately settle the suit 
and agree to pay a fine of $5,500.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\FEC v. Kazran, No. 10-cv-1155 Docket #1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 
2010).
    \69\FEC v. Kazran, Docket #65 (Feb. 29, 2012). HNJ appears to be a 
defunct entity and did not enter an appearance in the case. Thus, the 
district court entered default judgment against HNJ for the full amount 
of the reimbursed contributions. FEC v. Kazran, Docket #69 (Mar. 8, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The question of Representative Buchanan's involvement in 
the HNJ reimbursements is subject to substantially more dispute 
than his apparent lack of involvement in reimbursements from 
the other two dealerships. Mr. Kazran alleged in his testimony 
before FEC and OCE that all the actions he took were at the 
repeated direction of Representative Buchanan:

          I instructed them to write a check and reimburse 
        themselves for--because Mr. Buchanan had asked me to 
        get money. And he specifically told me to get someone 
        you trust and run it through the corporation.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\FEC Investigation, Deposition of Sam Kazran; see also OCE's 
Referral, Ex. 2 para.14.

    Other witnesses testified that, while they did not directly 
witness Representative Buchanan directing conduit contributions 
at HNJ, they had observed other conversations and conduct that 
tended to show Representative Buchanan approving of such 
conduct. For example, HNJ's controller, Gayle Lephart, who 
reimbursed several HNJ employees for contributions to VBFC, 
stated that she overheard Mr. Kazran tell Representative 
Buchanan, during a phone call, ``Vern, I'll handle it right 
now.''\71\ Immediately after that call, Mr. Kazran directed Ms. 
Lephart to reimburse her own contribution to VBFC from HNJ 
funds. Joshua Farid stated that he overheard both sides of a 
telephone conversation during which Representative Buchanan 
told Mr. Kazran to reimburse contributions from HNJ employees 
with HNJ funds.\72\ Steve Silverio, one of Representative 
Buchanan's former business partners, testified that during a 
lunch in August or September 2005, Dennis Slater, who worked 
for Representative Buchanan's companies as Chief Operating 
Officer (COO), suggested that corporate funds could be used to 
reimburse contributions to Representative Buchanan's first 
House campaign.\73\ More tangentially, Sal Rosa, a former 
officer in one of Representative Buchanan's companies, stated 
that before Representative Buchanan ran for office himself, 
Representative Buchanan asked Mr. Rosa to have his company 
reimburse a political contribution for another candidate. Mr. 
Rosa claimed that when he objected, Representative Buchanan 
told him to ``finesse it.''\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\OCE's Referral, Ex. 5 para.13-15.
    \72\Mr. Farid's testimony is inconsistent with others, including 
Mr. Kazran himself, on this point. See infra n. 76 and accompanying 
text.
    \73\Id. at 10.
    \74\FEC Investigation, General Counsel's Report #9 at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, the evidence described above was in many ways 
flawed, inconsistent, and ultimately insufficient to prove that 
Representative Buchanan was directly involved in, or was even 
aware of, the reimbursed contributions from HNJ. None of the 
documents contemporaneous with the reimbursed contributions 
corroborated Mr. Kazran's testimony; indeed, his testimony 
consistently referred to oral direction from Representative 
Buchanan, as opposed to memos or emails instructing him to 
reimburse contributions. Similarly, none of the witness 
testimony described above could consistently corroborate Mr. 
Kazran's allegations. By her own admission, Ms. Lephart never 
heard Representative Buchanan tell Mr. Kazran to reimburse 
contributions,\75\ and Mr. Kazran explicitly rejected Mr. 
Farid's claim that Mr. Farid directly overheard Representative 
Buchanan tell Mr. Kazran to reimburse contributions during 
telephone conversations between Mr. Kazran and Representative 
Buchanan.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\Id. at 7, 9.
    \76\See OCE's Referral, Ex. 2 para.25 (``There was no instance when 
[Mr. Kazran] allowed someone to overhear a phone call with 
Representative Buchanan when reimbursements were discussed. Anyone who 
said that is lying.'') (emphasis added); FEC Investigation, General 
Counsel's Report #9 at 8 (Mr. Farid's understanding of Representative 
Buchanan's involvement was ``based on subsequent conversations [Mr. 
Farid] had with Mr. Kazran'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Silverio's testimony, similarly, did not directly 
connect Representative Buchanan to any of the reimbursed 
contributions, much less those that specifically took place at 
HNJ. While Mr. Silverio alleged that someone associated with 
Representative Buchanan suggested using corporate funds for 
contributions to VBFC generally, he did not connect 
Representative Buchanan directly to the suggestion, nor did he 
provide evidence that this suggestion led to any reimbursement 
of campaign contributions from corporate funds. In the same 
way, Mr. Rosa's uncorroborated testimony suggests that 
Representative Buchanan may have failed to comply with federal 
election laws when he raised funds for a different candidate, 
prior to entering politics himself. But other than an isolated 
comment to ``finesse'' the legality of a contribution, Mr. Rosa 
provided no additional information about Representative 
Buchanan knowing or approving of a specific scheme to reimburse 
those contributions. Put another way, the one-off comments that 
Mr. Silverio and Mr. Rosa heard and testified to were made in 
different contexts and without any contextual connection to the 
contributions at HNJ.
    Mr. Kazran's uncorroborated testimony suffered from 
another, larger problem: his lack of credibility. Mr. Kazran's 
statement to OCE was inconsistent with his testimony before the 
FEC: he testified to the former that Representative Buchanan 
first directed Mr. Kazran to reimburse contributions in June 
2006, whereas Mr. Kazran told the FEC that first occurred in 
November 2005.\77\ Because HNJ first reimbursed contributions 
to VBFC in 2005, Mr. Kazran's testimony to OCE makes it less 
likely that Representative Buchanan was involved in at least 
those initial contributions, if not the entire series of 
reimbursements. Mr. Kazran also appeared at times during the 
investigations to be motivated by personal and professional 
animus for Representative Buchanan. For example, in the weeks 
leading up to the 2010 election, he threatened to publicize the 
FEC investigation, in potential violation of the FEC's 
confidentiality rules, by filing a lawsuit related to the 
investigation.\78\ Perhaps most concerning, a Georgia state 
court ordered Mr. Kazran to serve jail time for contempt of 
court, arising out of his fraudulent transfer of over $100,000 
from car dealerships owned by Mr. Kazran that were in 
receivership.\79\ The FEC found that Mr. Kazran's conduct in 
that case reflected both on his honesty and his respect for the 
law.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\Compare OCE's Referral, Ex. 2 para. 12 with FEC Investigation, 
Deposition of Sam Kazran. In his OCE statement, Mr. Kazran referred to 
a conversation he allegedly heard between Representative Buchanan and 
two of his colleagues in late 2005 or early 2006, where reimbursements 
were discussed. But the other alleged participants in that conversation 
denied hearing Representative Buchanan authorize reimbursed 
contributions. See, e.g., OCE's Referral, Ex. 10 para. 23.
    \78\FEC Investigation, General Counsel's Report # 9 at 3-4. Mr. 
Kazran's motives for attacking Representative Buchanan are discussed 
more fully in the section above.
    \79\Id. at 3.
    \80\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Viewed in this context, Mr. Kazran's claims about what 
happened at HNJ fit less tidily into the totality of the 
circumstances. Without corroboration of Representative 
Buchanan's instruction to reimburse contributions, the pressure 
he may have exercised on his colleagues to donate to his 
campaigns appears less like a prelude to an illegal conduit 
scheme and more like hard-sell fundraising, which is not 
illegal. In the end, the flaws in Mr. Kazran's story and his 
character made it at least equally likely that he decided to 
reimburse the contributions himself, without Representative 
Buchanan's knowledge or involvement. The FEC appears to have 
reached this conclusion, and took no further action with 
respect to Representative Buchanan.\81\ In his testimony before 
the Committee, Representative Buchanan again asserted that he 
had not been involved in or had any knowledge of the reimbursed 
contributions at HNJ at the time they occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\FEC Investigation, Notification to Vernon G. Buchanan (Feb. 7, 
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When recommending that the FEC close its investigation of 
Representative Buchanan, the FEC's Acting General Counsel noted 
that Representative Buchanan's testimony was ``not particularly 
credible.''\82\ For example, the FEC's Acting General Counsel 
concluded that, despite Representative Buchanan's testimony to 
the contrary, it was unlikely that Representative Buchanan was 
not involved in the drafting of the affidavit.\83\ In addition, 
Representative Buchanan testified that he could not remember 
asking Mr. Kazran to raise funds for VBFC, and testified that 
he did not ``know what anybody has raised.'' However, the FEC's 
Acting General Counsel noted that VBFC kept lists of the 
amounts that Representative Buchanan's partners had raised, and 
his campaign treasurer testified that Representative Buchanan 
would regularly discuss fundraising activities with his 
partners at business meetings and through personal follow-
ups.\84\ Despite these issues, the FEC's Acting General Counsel 
recommended dismissal of the investigation of Representative 
Buchanan because these ``inconsistencies on background issues 
do not necessarily show that [Representative] Buchanan directed 
[Mr.] Kazran to reimburse contributions.''\85\ However, the 
FEC's Acting General Counsel stated that Representative 
Buchanan's ``inability to remember basic facts as to these 
uncontroversial, routine issues detracts from his 
credibility.''\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\See FEC Investigation General Counsel's Report #9 at 20.
    \83\Id. at 19.
    \84\Id. at 21.
    \85\Id. at 22.
    \86\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When the Committee interviewed Representative Buchanan, his 
recollection of details regarding fundraising from business 
partners was similarly vague. He had very little specific 
recollection of having solicited campaign donations from any 
particular partner or group of partners, although he 
acknowledged that ``sometimes people would ask me if they could 
help in the campaign'' after having meetings with his partners. 
He noted that the campaign did track donors, but that his own 
focus was on ``relationships and people that I've worked with 
over the years [and soliciting a] maxed out contribution,'' as 
opposed to asking his colleagues to host large-scale 
fundraisers or bundle contributions from their own networks.
    When asked about the similarities between the alleged 
conduit contributions at the aforementioned companies, 
Representative Buchanan denied that he had any knowledge or 
involvement in any of them, or of any coordination between 
these entities. Rather, Representative Buchanan postulated:

          I have 55 entities. You're talking about Dodge where 
        there is five or six people reimbursed $1,000. You're 
        talking about a Ford store that's up in the Clearwater 
        area that was $10,000, and Sam Kazran, that I'm aware 
        of, and we raised in excess of $10 million [in campaign 
        contributions]. [T]he reality of it is, when you raise 
        that much money over a period of 12 years almost, 
        you're going to have some incidences. . . . I do think 
        that we had partners that were naive. . . . 
        Unfortunately some of them were just overzealous to 
        some extent. I don't think it's a lot in terms of the 
        magnitude over all, but it's too much by any standard . 
        . . we don't take employee contributions anymore.

                              V. FINDINGS


                         A. 52 U.S.C. 30122\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\Previously codified as 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A federal campaign finance statute, 52 U.S.C. 30122, 
prohibits persons from making contributions in the name of 
another. The prohibition applies not only to persons who make 
such contributions, but also to persons who assist in such 
contributions, including ``those who initiate or instigate or 
have some significant participation in a plan or scheme to make 
a contribution in the name of another[.]''\88\ The statute 
applies to ``knowing'' and ``willful'' violations,\89\ which is 
not to say that violations require a specific knowledge of the 
law, but rather that the defendant ``acted deliberately and 
with knowledge that the representation was false.''\90\ The FEC 
investigated the reimbursed contributions from Buchanan-
affiliated companies to VBFC, and did not find that 
Representative Buchanan was responsible for violations of 
Section 441f.\91\ While the FEC staff noted that the matter 
``came close'' to such a finding with respect to reimbursed 
contributions from one of the dealerships--HNJ--the FEC 
nevertheless voted to close the matter and take no further 
action.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\11 C.F.R. Sec. 110.4(b)(1)(iii); 54 Fed. Reg. 34098 (1989).
    \89\See 52 U.S.C. Sec. 30109(a)(5)(B), 30109(d), previously 
codified as 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
    \90\United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207, 214 (5th Cir. 1990).
    \91\FEC Investigation, General Counsel's Report #9 at 27.
    \92\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee's own review of the evidence led to the same 
conclusion reached by the FEC. The witnesses to Representative 
Buchanan's involvement with the conduit contributions at HNJ 
contradicted each other and could not substantiate a direct 
link between Representative Buchanan and the reimbursed 
contributions. Ms. Lephart heard only Mr. Kazran's side of a 
telephone conversation, which did not include any explicit 
direction from Representative Buchanan. Mr. Farid, who was Mr. 
Kazran's relative, claimed to have heard both sides of a 
conversation between Mr. Kazran and Representative Buchanan, 
but Mr. Kazran said that was a lie. Mr. Kazran himself had 
provided inconsistent testimony when speaking to the FEC and 
OCE, and his credibility was further compromised when a state 
court in Georgia convicted him of contempt in 2008 for 
diverting funds from one of his companies in violation of a 
court order.
    The Committee was initially troubled that three different 
Buchanan-affiliated companies were caught reimbursing 
contributions to VBFC, along with a fourth company owned and 
controlled by Representative Buchanan's close friend, Timothy 
Mobley. Such facts reasonably raise questions about 
Representative Buchanan's involvement in the various schemes 
and explain why so many entities investigated these 
allegations. The Committee was also concerned that Mr. Silverio 
testified that one of Representative Buchanan's close 
associates suggested reimbursing contributions as a general 
matter, and that Mr. Rosa testified that, before Representative 
Buchanan even ran for office himself, he suggested reimbursing 
contributions for another candidate from corporate funds.
    However, when viewed in the context of all the available 
evidence, these facts, on their own, were not sufficient to 
conclude that Representative Buchanan knew of the unlawful 
reimbursements prior to September 2008, or had some role in 
directing or approving of them. Indeed, it is not unreasonable 
to conclude that each dealership's management, in response to 
intense fundraising efforts from VBFC, made a similar error in 
judgment and reimbursed contributions independent of the 
choices of one another. Moreover, none of the witnesses could 
credibly claim that they heard Representative Buchanan direct 
the reimbursement of campaign contributions to VBFC, or even 
show that he knew of them. While Mr. Silverio did testify that 
an associate of Mr. Buchanan suggested reimbursing 
contributions through corporate funds, as the FEC said, Mr. 
Silverio's testimony ``eliminated [Representative] Buchanan's 
involvement in this incident.''\93\ The witness who came 
closest to implicating Representative Buchanan directly--Mr. 
Rosa--testified about a conversation that occurred before 
Representative Buchanan even ran for his House seat and 
concerned a different candidate. All told, there was 
insufficient evidence to conclude that Representative Buchanan 
knew of or directed conduit contributions at any companies with 
which he was affiliated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\FEC General Counsel's Report #9 at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accordingly, the Committee did not find that Representative 
Buchanan violated Section 30122.

                              B. TITLE 18

    Three statutes criminalize improper influence over the 
testimony of witnesses before federal tribunals. Those 
statutes--sections 201(b)(3), 1505, and 1512(b)(1) of Title 
18--criminalize related conduct in slightly different ways. 
First, 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(3) prohibits persons from knowingly and 
corruptly giving, offering, or promising anything of value to a 
witness, with the intent of influencing that witness' 
testimony. Second, 18 U.S.C. 1505 prohibits persons from 
knowingly and corruptly influencing, obstructing, or impeding 
pending proceedings before a federal agency, such as the FEC, 
or from knowingly and corruptly endeavoring to influence, 
obstruct, or impede such a proceeding. Third, 18 U.S.C. 
1512(b)(1) prohibits persons from knowingly and corruptly 
intimidating, threatening, engaging in misleading conduct, or 
corruptly persuading another person with the intent of 
influencing a person's testimony. All of these statutes 
prohibit ``knowing'' and ``corrupt'' actions, which is to say 
that a particular act only violates the law if it was taken 
with the intent to accomplish the wrongful end.\94\ The Supreme 
Court has clarified that, at least with respect to Section 
1512, liability is limited to ``persuaders conscious of their 
wrongdoing.''\95\ And the statutes themselves state that they 
do not apply to actions that ``consisted solely of lawful 
conduct and [where] the defendant's sole intention was to 
encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify 
truthfully,''\96\ as well as ``the providing of lawful, bona 
fide, legal representation services in connection with or 
anticipation of an official proceeding.''\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\See, e.g., Arthur Andersen v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 
(2005); United States v. Bhagat, 436 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2006).
    \95\Arthur Andersen, 544 U.S. at 706.
    \96\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(e).
    \97\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paragraph 5 of the draft affidavit would have required Mr. 
Kazran to swear that he, Mr. Kazran, did not know that HNJ 
reimbursed its employees' contributions to VBFC until September 
2008, after the reimbursements occurred.\98\ However, the 
record shows that Mr. Kazran did know of the reimbursed 
contributions before September 2008. First, Mr. Kazran has 
admitted directing the reimbursements in 2005, 2006, and 
2007.\99\ Additionally, Ms. Lephart and Mr. Farid both 
testified that Mr. Kazran was involved in the 
reimbursements.\100\ However, to demonstrate that 
Representative Buchanan attempted to improperly influence Mr. 
Kazran's testimony would require a showing that Representative 
Buchanan knew the statement about Mr. Kazran's knowledge was in 
the draft affidavit, and knew that statement was false.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\OCE's Referral Sec. 37.
    \99\Id. para. 38-41, Ex. 2.
    \100\Id. para. 43-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee reviewed the available evidence and 
ultimately concluded that the evidence was insufficient to find 
that Representative Buchanan knowingly or corruptly attempted 
to influence Mr. Kazran's testimony in an unlawful way. This 
finding was consistent with the reviews of the FEC, DOJ, and 
the Florida state court. OCE, however, found substantial reason 
to believe Representative Buchanan improperly influenced Mr. 
Kazran's testimony before the FEC. OCE noted in its Referral 
that the fact that some witnesses, including Representative 
Buchanan, failed to cooperate with its investigation permitted 
it to draw an adverse inference against those witnesses. 
However, OCE determined that, even without such an inference, 
the evidence was ``more than sufficient'' to support its 
determination.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\Id. para. 87.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, despite the lack of cooperation from Representative 
Buchanan, OCE found there was substantial reason to believe 
that Representative Buchanan knew that paragraph 5 was false. 
This finding was based on certain communications between Mr. 
Kazran and either Representative Buchanan or Representative 
Buchanan's employees. As a threshold matter, OCE noted that the 
September 8, 2008 email itself disclosed Mr. Kazran's 
involvement in the reimbursed contributions, giving 
Representative Buchanan notice that Mr. Kazran would have known 
about them before that date.\102\ OCE further relied on two 
emails sent by Mr. Kazran and Mr. Farid to employees of 
Representative Buchanan in August 2008, discussing campaign 
contributions, noting that HNJ had supported Representative 
Buchanan ``to a tune of $80K'' and that Mr. Kazran was ``the 
only one in our group that has donated over 80k'' to VBFC.\103\ 
Finally, OCE noted that Representative Buchanan himself stated 
in an October 2008, voicemail that Mr. Kazran had legal 
responsibility for the reimbursed contributions, and therefore 
must have known of Mr. Kazran's own involvement.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\Id. para. 53-57.
    \103\Id. para. 62-63.
    \104\Id. para. 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Buchanan has offered two responses to the 
allegation that he intended to cause Mr. Kazran to sign a false 
affidavit. First, he has stated that Paragraph 5 of the draft 
affidavit was true on its face.\105\ However, Representative 
Buchanan reaches this conclusion by ignoring key language from 
Paragraph 5, namely the statement that Mr. Kazran did not know 
of the illegal reimbursements before September 2008. FEC's 
Acting General Counsel found that this portion of the affidavit 
was false,\106\ and the Committee reached the same conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\Letter from Counsel to Representative Buchanan to OCE 
(``Representative Buchanan's OCE Response'') at 3.
    \106\Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, and more persuasively, Representative Buchanan 
asserts that Paragraph 5, while it is ``admittedly inartful and 
contains typos,'' was intended to establish that Representative 
Buchanan had no knowledge of the reimbursed campaign 
contributions prior to Mr. Kazran's September 8, 2008, email to 
Mr. Tosch.\107\ In other words, Representative Buchanan claims 
that the false language in Paragraph 5 was a drafting error, 
and that this is clear from the general purpose of the draft 
affidavit, the circumstances surrounding it, and the sections 
other than Paragraph 5. Representative Buchanan also claims 
that he did not see the draft affidavit until years after it 
was provided to Mr. Kazran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While OCE focused on the plain reading of Paragraph 5, and 
the false statement it contained, it did not explain why 
Representative Buchanan would have wanted Mr. Kazran to swear 
that Mr. Kazran was unaware of the reimbursed contributions 
prior to September 2008, given that the draft affidavit was 
intended to be filed with the FEC, to establish Representative 
Buchanan's lack of knowledge of the reimbursement scheme. 
However, Representative Buchanan's intentions regarding the 
draft affidavit are critical to the determination of whether 
his provision of an admittedly false affidavit to Mr. Kazran 
was a violation of any of the criminal statutes OCE cited.
    Ultimately, the Committee did not find sufficient evidence 
that Representative Buchanan knowingly or corruptly attempted 
to influence Mr. Kazran's testimony in an unlawful way. As a 
threshold matter, an offer of a monetary settlement in exchange 
for the execution of an affidavit, without further evidence of 
corrupt intent, is not illegal. Indeed, such offers are a 
standard element of settlement discussions in commercial 
litigation. Of course, if Representative Buchanan knowingly or 
corruptly attempted to cause Mr. Kazran to sign a false 
affidavit, he may have violated the statutes OCE cited in its 
Referral.\108\ But proof of such a violation requires an 
analysis of Representative Buchanan's intent; it is not enough 
merely to show that Representative Buchanan's attorney 
presented an affidavit containing a single false statement to 
Mr. Kazran. Thus, the Committee considered the totality of the 
circumstances surrounding the language at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\It is worth noting that OCE did not cite any case law or other 
precedent supporting its application of the three statutes in question 
to the facts as OCE found them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This analysis necessarily begins with Representative 
Buchanan's knowledge of the contents of the affidavit. 
Representative Buchanan testified that he had not seen the 
affidavit at the time it was presented to Mr. Kazran, and OCE's 
Referral did not cite any evidence to the contrary. While the 
FEC's Acting General Counsel found that ``[i]t is improbable 
that Buchanan's attorneys drafted the affidavit and presented 
it to Kazran without Buchanan's involvement,''\109\ there is no 
evidence, either in documents or testimony, showing that 
Representative Buchanan actually reviewed the final document, 
including the disputed language in Paragraph 5, before his 
attorney presented it to Mr. Kazran.\110\ Thus, the Committee 
could not conclude that Representative Buchanan provided an 
affidavit to Mr. Kazran that Representative Buchanan had read 
and knew to be false.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\FEC General Counsel's Report #9 at 19.
    \110\Of course, the October 2, 2008 Term Sheet does bear 
Representative Buchanan's signature. Representative Buchanan 
acknowledged that he may have signed the signature page of the October 
2, 2008 term sheet without reviewing the rest of the document, 
including the affidavit. The signature lines are on a separate page 
from the settlement terms and the affidavit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, as Representative Buchanan has explained, the 
idea that Paragraph 5 was intended to establish Mr. Kazran's 
lack of knowledge of the reimbursed contributions before 
September 2008 makes very little sense given the context of the 
draft affidavit and the surrounding dispute. By October 2, 
2008, Representative Buchanan had been aware for a month that 
HNJ employees had made improper contributions to VBFC. If 
indeed he was not involved in those contributions, he 
understood that liability would rest on those who were 
responsible, namely Mr. Kazran. The voicemail recorded by Mr. 
Kazran confirms Representative Buchanan's understanding, when 
he stated that ``technically [Mr. Kazran has] that liability.'' 
In fact, not only did Representative Buchanan appear to 
understand Paragraph 5 (and the rest of the draft affidavit) to 
disclaim only his own knowledge and not Mr. Kazran's knowledge, 
Mr. Kazran himself understood the draft affidavit in this way, 
stating that the draft affidavit made him the ``fall guy'' and 
``blame[d] everything on [Mr. Kazran.]''\111\ The FEC also 
appears to have adopted this understanding of Paragraph 5,\112\ 
as both its questioning of Mr. Kazran and an initial report 
from the General Counsel focused on the draft affidavit only 
insofar as it might disclaim knowledge on the part of 
Representative Buchanan.\113\ Put another way, many persons 
used context clues to read paragraph 5 in a way that, while 
inconsistent with its plain text, placed it in line with the 
rest of the circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\See OCE's Referral, Ex. 2 para. 31; FEC Investigation, 
Deposition of Sam Kazran.
    \112\See FEC Investigation, General Counsel's Report #9 at 17-19.
    \113\See FEC Investigation, Deposition of Sam Kazran; FEC General 
Counsel's Report #2, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Such a conclusion is even more reasonable considering the 
nature of the draft affidavit itself. It is not uncommon for 
attorneys to secure statements from witnesses in anticipation 
of a proceeding, which can include drafting a proposed 
statement for discussion with that witness. It is also not fair 
to assume, without other evidence, that such drafts represent a 
premeditated and intentional attempt to put words in a 
witness's mouth, or that they are not subject to negotiation 
and revision. Courts that have confronted similar issues have 
held that simply providing a potential witness with a draft 
affidavit for his signature does not, by itself, constitute the 
obstruction of justice.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\See, e.g., United States v. Brand, 775 F.2d 1460, 1469 (11th 
Cir. 1985); see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bright, 6 F.3d 336, 341 
(5th Cir. 1993) (``Placing statements in a draft affidavit that have 
not been previously discussed with a witness does not automatically 
constitute bad-faith conduct''); Harrington v. United States, 267 F. 
97, 101 (8th Cir. 1920) (``It is not an unlawful attempt to influence 
or impede a witness, or the due administration of justice, for one to 
seek to obtain from a witness a statement of the facts as he believes 
them to be, without the exercise of undue influence, even though such a 
statement may conflict with prior testimony given by the one making the 
statement. Such an effort is not regarded with favor, because of the 
temptation to influence the witness unduly; but the mere request for a 
statement believed to be true . . . is not corrupt conduct.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On a similar note, it is unclear that simply providing 
paragraph 5 in the course of settlement negotiations 
constituted ``corrupt persuasion'' under Section 1512, or 
obstruction of justice, or witness bribery. There appear to 
have been no consequences for Mr. Kazran's refusal to sign the 
draft affidavit in terms of the ongoing dispute between him and 
Representative Buchanan. The Term Sheets before and after the 
one that included the draft affidavit do not evidence an 
attempt to increase the value of any settlement that included 
the draft affidavit; rather, the monetary value of 
Representative Buchanan's settlement offer to Mr. Kazran 
increased after the draft affidavit was dropped from the 
agreement. Similarly, far from being a nonnegotiable condition 
for Representative Buchanan, the evidence suggests that his 
attorneys continued to negotiate in the same way they had, 
irrespective of whether the draft affidavit was included. Even 
Mr. Kazran's September 8, 2008 email disclosing the reimbursed 
contributions came in the context of these same settlement 
negotiations, and so it appears that it was Mr. Kazran, not 
Representative Buchanan, who injected the campaign finance 
issues into the unrelated commercial dispute between the two 
men. Nor does the fact that Representative Buchanan countersued 
Mr. Kazran in the commercial dispute establish any corrupt 
intent to influence his testimony. Courts considering 
allegations of witness tampering in settlement negotiations 
have held that ``threats of litigation do not form the basis of 
a witness tampering allegation,''\115\ and that ``[i]n a 
litigious society such as ours, it is thin-skinned to think 
that a threatened counter-suit, or otherwise, in response to an 
initial threat of legal action is witness intimidation rather 
than a mere puffing or power play among negotiators.''\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Baron & Budd, 179 F.Supp.2d 233 
(S.D.N.Y. 2001).
    \116\Philadelphia Reserve Supply Co. v. Nowalk & Assoc., Inc., No. 
91-CV-0449, 1992 WL 210590 at *6 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is notable that DOJ received a citizen complaint 
regarding these same allegations, and chose not to pursue 
criminal charges against Representative Buchanan. Similarly, 
Mr. Kazran included related allegations regarding the draft 
affidavit in his complaint against Representative Buchanan in 
Florida state court, and Representative Buchanan prevailed in 
that case. The Committee is not privy to the internal rationale 
for DOJ's decision, and did not observe the Florida state 
proceedings firsthand. The Committee would not defer to these 
decisions, even if their basis was clear. But based on the 
Committee's own analysis above, it has found no reason to 
deviate from the result reached in those two forums. 
Accordingly, the Committee found insufficient evidence that 
Representative Buchanan violated Section 201, 1505, or 1512 of 
Title 18.

                  C. HOUSE RULE XXIII, CLAUSES 1 AND 2

    As stated in previous reports,\117\ the Committee observes 
two basic principles when applying the first two clauses of the 
Code of Conduct. First, Members must at all times act in a 
manner that reflects creditably upon the House. This standard 
was created to provide the Committee ``the ability to deal with 
any given act or accumulation of acts which, in the judgment of 
the [C]ommittee, are severe enough to reflect discredit on the 
Congress.''\118\ Clause 1 ``encompass[es] violations of law and 
abuses of one's official position.''\119\ It is a 
``purposefully . . . subjective'' standard.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\See, e.g., Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations 
Relating to Representative Alcee L. Hastings, H. Rept. 113-663, 113th 
Cong. 2d Sess. at 14-15 (2014); In the Matter of Allegations Relating 
to Representative Don Young, H. Rept. 113-487, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. 45-
46 (2014); In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative 
Shelley Berkley, H. Rept. 112-716, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. 36-37 (2012).
    \118\114 Cong. Reg. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968) (Statement of 
Representative Price).
    \119\Ethics Manual at 16.
    \120\114 Cong. Reg. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968) (Statement of 
Representative Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, the Committee notes the proposition that the Code 
of Conduct and other standards of conduct governing the ethical 
behavior of the House community are not criminal statutes to be 
construed strictly, but rather--under clause 2 of House Rule 
XXIII--must be read to prohibit violations not only of the 
letter of the rules, but of the spirit of the rules. Ethical 
rules governing the conduct of Members were created to assure 
the public of ``the importance of the precedents of decorum and 
consideration that have evolved in the House over the 
years.''\121\ The standard ``provide[s] the House with the 
means to deal with infractions that rise to trouble it without 
burdening it with defining specific charges that would be 
difficult to state with precision.''\122\ The practical effect 
of Clause 2 is to allow the Committee to construe ethical rules 
broadly, and prohibit Members, officers and employees of the 
House from doing indirectly what they would be barred from 
doing directly. The Ethics Manual states that ``a narrow 
technical reading of a House Rule should not overcome its 
`spirit' and the intent of the House in adopting that and other 
rules of conduct.''\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \121\House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Report under the 
Authority of H. Res. 418, H. Rept. 90-1176, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 17 
(1968).
    \122\114 Cong. Reg. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968) (Statement of 
Representative Price).
    \123\Ethics Manual at 17 (citing House Select Comm. on Ethics, 
Advisory Opinion No. 4, H. Rept. 95-1837, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. app. 61 
(1979)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has endeavored to read the applicable laws 
and rules in this matter in light of these provisions in the 
Code of Conduct. This is somewhat in tension with the general 
rule that criminal statutes such as those that formed the basis 
of OCE's Referral are to be construed narrowly.\124\ But even a 
broad reading of applicable rules does not create liability in 
the absence of substantial evidence of wrongdoing. Clause 2 of 
the Code of Conduct is intended to capture instances where 
there is such evidence that a party violated the spirit of the 
rule, not to create a lower standard of proof. Innuendo is not 
evidence. In this case, the FEC, DOJ, and a Florida state court 
examined the facts of Representative Buchanan's relationship 
with Mr. Kazran, and none of them were able to substantiate any 
violations of election laws or witness intimidation. The 
Committee has reviewed the evidence and does not find 
sufficient basis to reach an alternative conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\See generally United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 
35, 43 (1820).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Having said that, the Committee is concerned that, when 
recommending that the FEC dismiss the investigation of 
Representative Buchanan, the FEC's Acting General Counsel found 
that the evidence ``comes close'' to showing that 
Representative Buchanan directed or was aware of reimbursed 
contributions from HNJ. Moreover, if indeed that evidence of 
his involvement had been more substantial, even Representative 
Buchanan's proffered interpretation of Paragraph 5 of the draft 
affidavit--that he did not know of reimbursed contributions at 
HNJ before September 2008--would have been false, and 
consequently, the Committee's conclusion regarding the import 
of the draft affidavit may have been different.
    Indeed, it is troubling that part of the ``close'' case for 
the FEC's Acting General Counsel was its determination that 
parts of Representative Buchanan's own testimony were ``not 
particularly credible.''\125\ To be clear, the Committee's own 
review of Representative Buchanan's testimony led the Committee 
to slightly different conclusions about Representative 
Buchanan's candor. For example, the FEC's Acting General 
Counsel concluded it unlikely that Representative Buchanan was 
not involved in the drafting of the affidavit, because (1) the 
affidavit related to matters outside the scope of the private 
dispute between Representative Buchanan and Mr. Kazran, which 
was the primary focus of the negotiations, and (2) because it 
related to a matter that could have had electoral consequences 
for Representative Buchanan in advance of the 2008 House 
elections.\126\ Representative Buchanan's testimony before the 
Committee was similarly vague and unclear regarding his role in 
drafting the affidavit, especially his continued lack of recall 
with respect to the document, despite no fewer than three 
investigations regarding it. It would be more understandable if 
Representative Buchanan claimed that the passage of time had 
made it difficult to recall the process of drafting an eight-
year-old affidavit, but it is more difficult to ascertain 
precisely how he might have remained ignorant of a two-page 
document that has become so central to his own reputation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\See FEC Investigation General Counsel's Report #9 at 20-22.
    \126\Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But despite this lack of clarity, the evidence is simply 
insufficient to show precisely what role he had in drafting the 
affidavit, if any. Apart from the circumstances the FEC's 
Acting General Counsel describes, the General Counsel cited no 
evidence to contradict Representative Buchanan's testimony that 
he had almost nothing to do with the affidavit, and even if he 
had been more engaged, that does not suggest that he would have 
caught the false statement in paragraph 5 that so many others 
apparently missed.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \127\It would have been prudent for Representative Buchanan to have 
read the affidavit before his attorneys transmitted it to Mr. Kazran, 
particularly given that Representative Buchanan signed the Term Sheet 
to which the affidavit was attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the other hand, some of the FEC's Acting General 
Counsel's concerns about Representative Buchanan's credibility 
arose because other, credible evidence contradicted his 
testimony, especially as it related to his involvement in his 
campaign's fundraising activities. While Representative 
Buchanan testified that he could not remember asking Mr. Kazran 
to raise funds for VBFC, and testified that he did not ``know 
what anybody has raised,'' the FEC noted that VBFC kept lists 
of the amounts that Representative Buchanan's partners had 
raised, and his campaign treasurer testified that 
Representative Buchanan would regularly discuss fundraising 
activities with his partners at business meetings and through 
personal follow-ups.\128\ Indeed, Representative Buchanan's 
lack of recall about basic details of his fundraising, while 
perhaps explainable by his tendency to rely on others to work 
out the details of his strategies, made his testimony before 
the Committee at least difficult to follow, if not difficult to 
believe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FEC's Acting General Counsel concluded, and the 
Committee agreed, that ``inconsistencies on background issues 
do not necessarily show that [Representative] Buchanan directed 
[Mr.] Kazran to reimburse contributions.''\129\ But as the 
recommendation of the FEC's Acting General Counsel stated, 
Representative Buchanan's ``inability to remember basic facts 
as to these uncontroversial, routine issues detracts from his 
credibility.''\130\ If there were additional evidence that, 
beyond simply failing to recall basic and uncontroversial 
facts, a Member had provided false testimony on material facts 
to a government agency, the Committee would likely consider 
such false testimony a violation of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Code 
of Conduct. Representative Buchanan, and all Members, should 
assiduously guard their credibility, as it is an integral part 
of the public trust they inherit through their service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \129\Id. at 22.
    \130\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee notes that in both the circumstances 
surrounding contributions to VBFC reimbursed through Buchanan-
affiliated companies, and in the circumstances surrounding the 
draft affidavit, Representative Buchanan has put forth very 
little evidence, if any, regarding his own oversight and 
compliance efforts. He testified to the FEC that VBFC sent a 
letter to Buchanan-affiliated companies regarding election laws 
after he learned of problems with reimbursed contributions, but 
never produced such a letter to the FEC or the Committee, and, 
while he testified that he no longer accepts contributions from 
employees of Buchanan-affiliated companies, he apparently took 
no corrective action with respect to any employees implicated 
in the conduit contributions. In his testimony before the 
Committee, Representative Buchanan could not explain the 
unusual pattern of reimbursed contributions from multiple 
corporate entities with which he was affiliated, beyond stating 
that such violations are bound to occur, and that perhaps his 
colleagues became ``overzealous''' in their desire to assist 
his campaign. The Committee does not believe such violations 
are bound to occur in every campaign, and like Representative 
Buchanan, is unable to explain how multiple corporate entities 
came to participate in similar but separate conduit 
contributions schemes benefitting Representative Buchanan's 
campaign. Had Representative Buchanan or his campaign been more 
proactive in explaining the law to colleagues at the time they 
were soliciting donations--particularly after they first became 
aware there were concerns about compliance with respect to 
contributions associated with a company associated with 
Representative Buchanan--perhaps the subsequent similar issues 
could have been avoided. Similarly, issues with respect to the 
draft affidavit might have been avoided had Representative 
Buchanan read the affidavit. The Committee cautions 
Representative Buchanan to exercise more diligence over affairs 
related to his campaign.

                             VI. CONCLUSION

    VBFC accepted campaign donations from individuals who were 
subsequently reimbursed through the corporate funds of 
companies affiliated with Representative Buchanan. The FEC 
investigated those donations and failed to find sufficient 
evidence that Representative Buchanan directed or knew of any 
unlawful reimbursements. DOJ also reviewed allegations against 
Representative Buchanan and similarly closed its investigation. 
A Florida state court hearing a private dispute between Mr. 
Kazran and Representative Buchanan, including claims that the 
draft affidavit was an abuse of the civil process, held against 
Mr. Kazran and for Representative Buchanan. OCE's Referral 
recommended further review regarding the wording of a single 
paragraph in a draft affidavit Representative Buchanan's 
attorney's proposed to Mr. Kazran, for use in the FEC 
investigation. The Committee has independently reviewed the 
evidence in this case and reached a conclusion in accord with 
the FEC, DOJ, and the state trial court. The Committee 
concluded that the existing evidence is insufficient to sustain 
any of the aforementioned allegations or to warrant any action 
against Representative Buchanan. However, the Committee noted 
that Representative Buchanan admitted that he had relatively 
limited knowledge or involvement with certain facets of his 
campaign.
    Because the evidence is insufficient to conclude that 
Representative Buchanan himself was aware of the unlawful 
reimbursements at the time they occurred, or had any role in 
directing or approving of them, and the evidence is 
insufficient to find that Representative Buchanan attempted to 
improperly influence the testimony of Mr. Kazran before the 
FEC, the Committee has determined to take no further action in 
this matter, and upon publication of this Report, considers the 
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]