[House Report 115-272]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                  House Calendar No. 76

115th Congress  }                                             { Report
                          
                          HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
  1st Session   }                                             { 115-272
 

_______________________________________________________________________


                      IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS

                RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE BEN RAY LUJAN

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

             
             
             [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


   August 1, 2017.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed
                                
                                
                                
                                  ________
                       
                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                
69-006                          WASHINGTON: 2017                               
                                




                                
                                
                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana             Theodore E. Deutch, Florida
  Chairwoman                           Ranking Member
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania         Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina           Jared Polis, Colorado
Kenny Marchant, Texas                Anthony Brown, Maryland
Leonard Lance, New Jersey            Steve Cohen, Tennessee

                              REPORT STAFF

              Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
            Patrick M. McMullen, Director of Investigations
               Megan H. Savage, Counsel to the Chairwoman
            Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member

                        C. Ezekiel Ross, Counsel
                     Molly N. McCarty, Investigator
                   Michael Koren, Investigative Clerk
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Ethics,
                                    Washington, DC, August 1, 2017.
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 Ben Ray Lujan.''
            Sincerely,
                                   Susan W. Brooks,
                                           Chairwoman.
                                   Theodore E. Deutch,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________
  I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................1
 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND............................................2
III. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT...2
 IV. BACKGROUND.......................................................4
          A. REPRESENTATIVE LUJAN'S EMAIL TO A CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER     5
          B. THE JUNE 22, 2016, CAMPAIGN EMAIL BY BOULDER 
              STRATEGIES.........................................     5
          C. THE JUNE 23, 2016, CAMPAIGN EMAIL BY BOULDER 
              STRATEGIES.........................................     7
  V. FINDINGS.........................................................9
          A. SOLICITATION OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER 
              CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY IN HOUSE BUILDINGS...............     9
            1. REPRESENTATIVE LUJAN'S EMAIL DID NOT SOLICIT 
                CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS...........................     9
            2. THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT REPRESENTATIVE LUJAN 
                ENGAGED IN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY IN A HOUSE BUILDING.    10
          B. BOULDER STRATEGIES' USE OF AN IMAGE OF THE HOUSE 
              FLOOR IN THE JUNE 23, 2016, CAMPAIGN SOLICITATION..    11
 VI. CONCLUSION......................................................12
VII. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C)....................13
     APPENDIX 1: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
     ETHICS (REVIEW NO. 17-8362).....................................14
     APPENDIX 2: REPRESENTATIVE LUJAN'S SUBMISSION..................242
     APPENDIX 3: EXHIBITS TO COMMITTEE REPORT.......................257






                                                  House Calendar No. 76

115th Congress }                                           {  Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session   }                                           {  115-272

======================================================================

 
 IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE BEN RAY LUJAN

                                _______
                                

   August 1, 2017.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

         Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, from the Committee on Ethics, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

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

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    On May 11, 2017, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) 
transmitted to the Committee a Report and Findings (OCE's 
Referral) regarding Representative Ben Ray Lujan. OCE reviewed 
allegations that Representative Lujan violated laws, House 
rules, and other standards of conduct by (1) improperly 
conducting campaign or political activity from the floor of the 
House of Representatives; (2) improperly soliciting campaign 
contributions from a federal building; and (3) improperly using 
an image of a House of Representatives floor proceeding for 
campaign and political purposes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\OCE's Referral at 1 (Appendix A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OCE found that there was ``substantial reason to believe 
that Representative Lujan conducted campaign or political 
activity from the House Floor, solicited a campaign 
contribution from a federal building, or used an image of a 
House Floor proceeding for campaign or political purposes.''\2\ 
For that reason, OCE recommended that the Committee further 
review these allegations.\3\ However, OCE acknowledged that 
``the evolving nature of electronic communications and campaign 
solicitations sometimes presents novel issues that are not 
directly addressed by the House Ethics Manual,'' and that OCE's 
review ``raised difficult questions about the application of 
House rules to solicitations via email.''\4\ OCE suggested that 
``Members may benefit from additional guidance regarding 
campaign activities and electronic communications.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Id. at 1, 16.
    \3\Id. at 1.
    \4\Id. at 15.
    \5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee agreed that this was an area where additional 
guidance could be useful, and did further review the 
allegations. Following its review, the Committee concluded that 
the evidence is insufficient to warrant further action against 
Representative Lujan. Specifically, the Committee did not find 
that Representative Lujan engaged in campaign or political 
activity, or solicited campaign contributions, from the House 
Floor or any other federal building. The Committee did find 
that Representative Lujan's campaign consultant used an image 
of House proceedings from the House recording system in a 
campaign communication, which was an inadvertent, technical 
violation of House Rule V, clause 2(c)(1). Members are 
ultimately responsible for actions taken in their name that 
they delegate to third parties. Thus, Members should take 
reasonable steps to ensure that their campaign committees or 
consultants comply with all applicable laws, rules, and 
regulations. However, given the limited nature of the 
violation, as well as Representative Lujan's subsequent efforts 
to prevent any recurrence of this issue, the Committee did not 
find that a sanction was warranted.
    Accordingly, the Committee unanimously voted to dismiss 
this matter, publish this Report, and take no further action. 
Upon publication of this Report, the Committee considers the 
matter closed.

                       II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    OCE commenced a preliminary review of this matter on 
February 4, 2017. On March 6, 2017, OCE initiated a second-
phase review. On May 5, 2017, the OCE Board voted five to one 
to adopt the Findings and refer the matter to the Committee 
with a recommendation for further review.
    The Committee received OCE's referral on May 11, 2017. The 
Committee issued voluntary requests for information to 
Representative Lujan, and he responded by voluntarily providing 
documents and other information to the Committee. In total, the 
Committee reviewed over 1,250 pages of materials, including the 
transcripts of four voluntary interviews.
    On July 27, 2017, the Committee unanimously voted to 
release this Report and take no further action with respect to 
Representative Lujan.

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

    Federal law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 607, makes it ``unlawful for . 
. . Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of 
money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, 
State, or local election, while in any room or building 
occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or 
employee of the United States, from any person.'' According to 
the House Ethics Manual, ``[t]he prohibition against House 
Members or employees soliciting campaign or political 
contributions in or from House offices, rooms, or buildings is 
very broad.''\6\ With one minor exception--an allowance for 
Members to solicit campaign contributions from other Members in 
House buildings--``the prohibition applies to all forms of 
solicitations--solicitations made in person, over the 
telephone, or through the mail.'' The Ethics Manual 
specifically notes that a Member may not prepare or make a 
campaign communication in a House building, even if the Member 
uses his own phone or other communications device.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See House Ethics Manual (2008) (hereinafter ``Ethics Manual'') 
at 144.
    \7\See id. at 144-45 (``A telephone solicitation from a House 
office or building would not be permissible merely because the call is 
billed to a credit card of a political organization or to an outside 
telephone number, or because it is made using a cell phone in the 
hallway. Similarly, when a House Member or employee makes solicitation 
calls somewhere else, such as at one of the campaign committee offices, 
and has to leave a message, the individual should not leave his or her 
House office telephone number for the return call. In addition, a 
fundraising mailing should not be either prepared or assembled in a 
House room or office, even if no House equipment or supplies are used 
in the process.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A separate statute, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a), requires that 
``appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which 
the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by 
law.'' Based on this statute, the Committee has long cautioned 
Members and House employees against the use of House buildings 
for unofficial activities. With respect to the use of official 
resources, including House buildings, for campaign or political 
activity, the Ethics Manual states that the statutory 
prohibition is absolute:

          A provision of the Members' Handbook permits the 
        incidental personal use of House equipment and supplies 
        ``when such use is negligible in nature, frequency, 
        time consumed, and expense.'' However, this policy 
        applies only to incidental personal use of those 
        resources, and not to their use for campaign or 
        political purposes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Id. at 126 (emphasis in original).

    In addition, the Ethics Manual states that ``the House 
rooms, offices, and buildings are considered official 
resources, and as such, they [should] not be used for the 
conduct of any campaign or political activity.''\9\ ``Among the 
specific activities that clearly may not be undertaken in a 
congressional office . . . are the solicitation of 
contributions; the drafting of campaign speeches, statements, 
press releases or literature; the completion of FEC reports; 
the creation or issuance of a campaign mailing; and the holding 
of a meeting on campaign business.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Id. at 145 (emphasis in original); see also id. (``In addition, 
the rules issued by the House Office Building Commission concerning the 
use of the House office buildings prohibit the soliciting of 
contributions in the buildings other than for certain charitable 
purposes.'')
    \10\Id. at 124 (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The purpose of these laws and rules is generally to 
preclude campaign or political activity from taking place in a 
congressional office. However, the Committee has recognized 
that there are certain limited activities that, while related 
to a Member's campaign, may properly take place in a 
congressional office. The Committee's view has been that it 
would be impractical and unnecessary to attempt to prohibit 
these specific activities. In this regard, the Committee has 
long advised that certain very limited and very specific 
activities are permissible.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Id. at 132-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee's jurisdiction is of current House Members, 
officers, and employees. However, many Members delegate certain 
campaign communications functions to outside entities. 
Anticipating this practical reality, the Ethics Manual states 
that ``under these rules, a Member or employee must take 
reasonable steps to ensure that any outside organization over 
which he or she exercises control--including the individual's 
own authorized campaign committee or, for example, a 
`leadership PAC'--operates in compliance with applicable 
law.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Id. at 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to use of images from the House Floor, House 
Rule V, clause 1, provides that ``[t]he Speaker shall 
administer, direct, and control a system for close-circuit 
viewing of floor proceedings of the House,'' and clause 2(c) 
states that ``[c]overage made available under this clause, 
including any recording thereof--(1) may not be used for any 
partisan political campaign purpose.''\13\ The Ethics Manual 
further explains that ``[b]roadcast coverage and recordings of 
House Floor proceedings may not be used for any political 
purpose under House Rule V, clause 2(c)(1).''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\House Rule V.
    \14\Ethics Manual at 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             IV. BACKGROUND

    On June 22 and June 23, 2016, Representative Ben Ray Lujan, 
Representative for New Mexico's 3rd District, participated in a 
sit-in on the House Floor. The sit-in was an organized attempt 
by Democratic Members to force a vote on the ``No Fly No Buy'' 
bill prior to adjourning for the July 4th recess.\15\ 
Representative Lujan joined the sit-in around midday on June 
22, 2016,\16\ and participated in the sit-in until he left and 
went home after 7:00 AM on June 23.\17\ According to 
Representative Lujan, he did not remain on the House Floor 
throughout the entire sit-in. Instead, he recalls leaving the 
House Floor for a pre-scheduled ``lunch or [] meeting outside 
of the building.''\18\ Representative Lujan also stated that he 
``left for a bit of time and then [] came back to the floor 
during the night,''\19\ and recalled leaving the House Floor to 
take bathroom breaks and to walk ``outside to the front of the 
building of the Capitol, just [to] get a breath of air.''\20\ 
In addition, Representative Lujan told OCE that ``[t]here were 
people gathering outside the Capitol, so members would leave 
periodically to go and either just stand with the crowd or 
speak to the crowd.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\See Exhibit 5 to OCE's Referral (attaching June 22, 2016, 
Boulder Strategies email explaining Representative Lujan's call for 
action via the sit-in).
    \16\Representative Lujan's June 22, 2016, calendar indicates that 
he was scheduled to take lunch at 11:30 AM, see Exhibit 7, and email 
correspondence from Representative Lujan's staff indicates that he was 
``heading to the floor'' at 12:13 PM, see Exhibit 8, and that he 
cancelled 12:30 PM and 2:30 PM meetings to remain on the House Floor, 
see Exhibit 9. When questioned regarding what time he joined the sit-in 
on the House Floor, Representative Lujan stated that he could not 
recall the exact time but that it was around lunchtime. See Exhibit 1 
to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan at 24.
    \17\Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan 
at 22-24; Exhibit 1 (6:32 AM message indicating that Representative 
Lujan was still on the House Floor and had been asked to speak ``during 
the 7 o'clock hour.''). Emails produced by Representative Lujan also 
indicate that at 9:37 AM on June 23, 2016, he was en route to a meeting 
at the offices of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 
(hereinafter ``DCCC''), and he arrived there shortly after 9:45 AM. See 
Exhibit 2 & Exhibit 4.
    \18\Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan, 
at 23-25.
    \19\Id. at 23-24.
    \20\Id. at 24.
    \21\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A. REPRESENTATIVE LUJAN'S EMAIL TO A CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER

    On June 22, 2016, at 3:00 PM, while Representative Lujan 
was on or near the House Floor for the sit-in, he received an 
email from Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham's campaign 
committee. The email stated that Representative Lujan Grisham 
was ``literally on the House floor,'' and requested that the 
recipients ``add your name to this petition,'' which related to 
the ``No Fly No Buy'' bill.\22\ The email did not request a 
campaign contribution.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Exhibit 2 to OCE's Referral.
    \23\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At 4:02 PM, Representative Lujan forwarded Representative 
Lujan Grisham's email to a volunteer for his campaign (Campaign 
Volunteer),\24\ with a one-sentence email stating ``Get 
something out.''\25\ The email was sent from Representative 
Lujan's personal email account to Campaign Volunteer's personal 
email account, and the email did not provide additional details 
regarding what Representative Lujan wanted to ``get out.''\26\ 
Representative Lujan does not recall whether he was on the 
House Floor, inside the Capitol, or inside any other federal 
building at the time he forwarded the email to Campaign 
Volunteer.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Campaign Volunteer is the Chief of Staff for the DCCC, but 
Representative Lujan has asserted that he was acting in his personal 
capacity in assisting Representative Lujan's campaign. See June 2, 
2017, Letter from Representative Lujan to Chairwoman Brooks and Ranking 
Member Deutch (hereinafter ``Representative Lujan Submission''), at 6. 
During the course of the sit-in, it appears Campaign Volunteer's email 
correspondence with Boulder Strategies, Representative Lujan, and 
Representative Lujan's campaign committee was limited to emails from 
his personal email account.
    \25\Exhibit 2 to OCE's Referral.
    \26\Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan 
at 34-35; Exhibit 2 to OCE's referral.
    \27\While it is unclear where Representative Lujan was located at 
4:02 PM, Representative Lujan's submissions indicate he was conferring 
with staff members regarding sit-in related interviews sometime between 
3:35 PM and 3:58 PM. See Exhibit 3; Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, 
Interview of Representative Lujan at 34 (``I was in and out of the 
Capitol quite a bit. I don't remember exactly where I was when I sent 
[the 4:02 PM email to Campaign Volunteer]''.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

       B. THE JUNE 22, 2016, CAMPAIGN EMAIL BY BOULDER STRATEGIES

    Representative Lujan's principal campaign committee, People 
for Ben, contracted with Boulder Strategies, a private 
political consulting firm, to handle campaign solicitations and 
petitions through ``[o]nline fund-raising and digital 
strategy.''\28\ Boulder Strategies' responsibilities included 
creating a calendar of when to send targeted email 
correspondence based on current events, the news cycle, and 
items relevant to Representative Lujan's voting base.\29\ 
Boulder Strategies sent both ``solicitations for contributions 
and also [] emails that were petitions, asking people to sign 
on with different policy issues'' to Representative Lujan's 
supporters throughout the 2016 election cycle.\30\ 
Representative Lujan left the decision whether a particular 
occasion called for a petition or a solicitation up to Boulder 
Strategies because Boulder Strategies was using a technology 
called HubSpot.\31\ HubSpot is a marketing software platform 
that was used by Boulder Strategies to test the type of 
messages and content that best captured public attention, and 
to determine which messages were ideal for generating 
fundraising revenue.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan 
at 6.
    \29\Exhibit 3 to OCE's Referral, Interview of DCCC Chief of Staff 
at 17-18.
    \30\Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan 
at 9; Exhibit 3 to OCE's Referral, Interview of DCCC Chief of Staff at 
20 (``It wasn't just solicitations. It was--it was just content 
delivery as well.'').
    \31\Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan 
at 31-32 (``I don't know that it's up to Aaron to make a decision of 
whether something is a petition or if it's an online solicitation for 
money. That's what Boulder Strategies was hired to do and that's their 
job.''); Exhibit 3 to OCE's Referral, Interview of DCCC Chief of Staff 
at 56 (``They were in charge of his entire e-mail program. They are the 
people who physically clicked `send' with their technology HubSpot or 
whatever they used to, like, message test and see which e-mails get 
more clicks and less clicks and how to include e-mail solicitations and 
all that other stuff, right. They were sort of the keeper of the keys 
when it came to that kind of stuff.'').
    \32\Exhibit 3 to OCE's Referral, Interview of DCCC Chief of Staff 
at 21 (``they had a technology called HubSpot that basically they would 
like message test things . . . and from whatever technology that they 
had they could decide like, wow, people are really paying attention to, 
like, you know, this issue or that issue or whatever.''); id. at 22 
(``It was kind of like a known fact that if an e-mail came across . . . 
if it had a solicitation within it that they had already identified 
that that was a subject matter via this technology HubSpot, that could 
potentially yield a good amount of campaign donations online.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Campaign Volunteer told OCE he viewed Representative 
Lujan's email to ``Get something out'' as a suggestion and did 
not convey the message to Boulder Strategies because Boulder 
Strategies already had email correspondence addressing the ``No 
Fly No Buy'' bill scheduled to be released on June 22, 
2016.\33\ Indeed, after the Orlando shooting prompted the 2016 
``No Fly No Buy'' bill, Boulder Strategies scheduled multiple 
emails to be released on Representative Lujan's behalf 
regarding the bill, bill-related events, and the general issue 
of gun violence in America.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Id. at 71-72 (``[B]ased on what was happening I knew that 
there, that they were already doing their thing here to create content, 
and so I, I didn't do anything.'').
    \34\Id. at 31-36, 46-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 22, 2016, at 7:11 PM, the President of Boulder 
Strategies sent an email\35\ to Representative Lujan's campaign 
committee staff and to Campaign Volunteer, requesting that they 
review a draft message on behalf of People for Ben.\36\ 
According to the President of Boulder Strategies, the ``e-mail 
was a continuation of a series of e-mails [Boulder Strategies 
had] been doing on [the] No Fly No Buy'' bill.\37\ Boulder 
Strategies ``simply took an e-mail that was already in the 
pipeline,'' which they ``were already planning to send,'' and 
``inserted the first line of the e-mail that talked about 
[Representative Lujan] being on the floor to make it relevant 
for the day's topic.''\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\Boulder Strategies sent their emails on Representative Lujan's 
behalf from their offices in Boulder, Colorado. Id. at 67.
    \36\Exhibit 5 to OCE's Referral.
    \37\Exhibit 4 to OCE's Referral, Interview of President of Boulder 
Strategies at 6.
    \38\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The message included a link redirecting recipients to a 
contribution page allowing them ``to make a contribution if 
they so choose.''\39\ Representative Lujan told OCE that he did 
not review the draft, propose any language with respect to the 
draft, or participate in the decision whether to include the 
contribution link.\40\ Neither OCE nor the Committee obtained 
any information to the contrary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\Id. at 8.
    \40\Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan 
at 36-37 (explaining that Representative Lujan played no role in the 
drafting or editing of the email); see also id. at 16-17 (explaining 
that Boulder Strategies sent Representative Lujan drafts of 
solicitations and petitions for the first few months of 2016, but 
stopped sending drafts after that and ``[a]s far as editing or drafting 
or anything like that, I had--I never did that.''); id. at 22 (``I 
think early on, I may have received them. But later, E-mails would get 
sent out to whatever list Boulder Strategies had, without me seeing 
them or editing them at all.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The email was ultimately sent at approximately 8:15 PM on 
June 22, 2016,\41\ to People for Ben supporters, with the 
following text included:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\See Exhibit 10.

          Friend,
          Today I join countless colleagues on the House floor 
        to demand action that will make our country safer.
          Facts matter--and the facts are that right now a 
        suspected terrorist can go into a gun store and 
        purchase a military-style assault rifle. In what world 
        do we think that's a good idea?
          Sign our pledge if you demand a vote on the 
        bipartisan No Fly, No Buy bill.
          My Republican colleagues would rather go on a 4th of 
        July recess before voting on this time-sensitive bill. 
        That's why we're on the House floor demanding action.
          Enough is enough--no bill, no break. Full stop. SIGN 
        HERE.
          I'm a strong believer in our Second Amendment rights 
        to bear arms, but also recognize that our system is 
        broken when it's too easy for a powerful gun to get in 
        the hands of someone who wants to hurt us.
          The Orlando shooter, who was interviewed by the FBI 
        just a couple years earlier, was able to legally 
        purchase an AR-15, military-grade assault rifle.
          Stand up if you support our sit-in.
          At a minimum, we must come together, put aside our 
        politics, and pass this commonsense measure.
          Thank you,
          Ben Ray
          CONTRIBUTE
          Paid for and authorized by People for Ben.

    Based on all of the evidence the Committee collected, it is 
not clear where Representative Lujan was physically located 
when Boulder Strategies released this message.

       C. THE JUNE 23, 2016, CAMPAIGN EMAIL BY BOULDER STRATEGIES

    On June 23, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Campaign Volunteer sent an 
email to the President of Boulder Strategies and the People for 
Ben campaign staff.\42\ The email stated ``[p]lease get another 
email ready for this morning. The members will have been on the 
floor for 24 hours, as of 11:00 this morning. We need to do a 
$$ ask on this.''\43\ Campaign Volunteer's request was based on 
a perceived impending shift in the news cycle away from the 
sit-in and the ``No Fly No Buy'' bill.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Exhibit 6 to OCE's Referral.
    \43\Id.
    \44\Exhibit 3 to OCE's Referral, Interview of DCCC Chief of Staff 
at 74-75 (``before [T] the news cycle moved to another subject which it 
often does very quickly I had suggested to them that we should probably 
send out another e-mail based on everything that was going on because 
the news cycle was probably about to shift.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Boulder Strategies complied with the request, and the June 
23, 2016, email was sent to a campaign distribution list at 
11:11 AM.\45\ The email contained an image of the House Floor 
that was obtained from an Associated Press news article.\46\ 
The original source of the image appears to be the House 
Broadcast network; Boulder Strategies included a citation to 
the image that stated ``Credit to House Television via 
AP.''\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\See Exhibit 11 (Boulder Strategies' email confirming that the 
June 23, 2016, ``Email is out''). Boulder Strategies sent their emails 
on Representative Lujan's behalf from their offices in Boulder, 
Colorado. See Exhibit 3 to OCE's Referral, Interview of DCCC Chief of 
Staff at 67.
    \46\Exhibit 3 to OCE's Referral, Interview of DCCC Chief of Staff 
at 66.
    \47\Exhibit 4 to OCE's Referral, Interview of President of Boulder 
Strategies at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The email from Boulder Strategies read as follows:

          Friend,
          As we pass the 11 am hour in Washington DC, my 
        Democratic colleagues and I have now been on the House 
        floor for greater than 24-hours, staging a sit-in to 
        demand a vote on the bi-partisan No Fly, No Buy bill.
          Despite the fact that Speaker Ryan has turned off the 
        cameras and the microphones, I will stand with my 
        colleagues to call for a vote on commonsense 
        legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of those 
        on the FBI Terrorist Watch List.
          Do you stand with us? Chip in $24 towards our 
        emergency fundraising goal--$1 for every hour we've 
        been in the well of the House Chamber demanding action.
          A moment of silence on the House floor is simply not 
        enough to honor the lives of those we have lost. We 
        need action to keep guns out of the hands of suspected 
        terrorists and it begins with a vote right here on the 
        House floor.
          Tell the GOP: It's simple--No Fly, No Buy, No Break. 
        Click to contribute $24 (or whatever you can) right now 
        to show your support!
          As I said in my email last night, this is a matter of 
        national security. We must come together to pass this 
        commonsense bill.
          Thanks for having our back,
          --Ben Ray

    Representative Lujan left the Capitol around 7:00 AM on 
June 23, 2016, and went home to sleep.\48\ An email from 
Representative Lujan's staff at 9:37 AM indicated he was on his 
way from his home to a meeting off the Capitol grounds at the 
DCCC office building.\49\ Based on this and other 
contemporaneous emails, it does not appear that Representative 
Lujan was in a federal building when Campaign Volunteer sent 
his email to Boulder Strategies.\50\ It is possible that 
Representative Lujan was on the House Floor at 11:11 AM on June 
23rd, when Boulder Strategies sent the second sit-in related 
email to supporters; the email suggested that he was ``now'' on 
the Floor, and communications between Representative Lujan's 
staff indicated that he was hoping to return to the floor after 
his 9:45 AM meeting at the DCCC.\51\ However, given that 
Representative Lujan did not actually write, review, or send 
the June 23 email to his supporters,\52\ the statement that he 
was ``now'' on the Floor may have been mere puffery, or based 
on an expectation of what Representative Lujan would do, rather 
than his actual movements. And the internal communications 
between Representative Lujan's staff do not indicate whether he 
actually returned to the Floor before the sit-in concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan 
at 22-24; Exhibit 1 (6:32 AM message indicating that Representative 
Lujan was still on the House Floor and had been asked to speak ``during 
the 7 o'clock hour.''); Exhibit 2.
    \49\See Exhibits 2 & 4.
    \50\See Exhibit 4 (9:37 AM email indicating that Representative 
Lujan was heading to a meeting at the DCCC office building but would 
``be a few minutes late to the 9:45'' AM meeting).
    \51\See Exhibit 2.
    \52\Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan 
at 38-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              V. FINDINGS


 A. SOLICITATION OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHER CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY 
                           IN HOUSE BUILDINGS

1. Representative Lujan's email did not solicit campaign contributions

    As previously discussed, Representative Lujan did not 
personally send the June 22 and June 23, 2016, emails to 
supporters that were the subject of OCE's Referral. Instead, 
Representative Lujan's campaign consultant, Boulder Strategies, 
sent the two messages to supporters on behalf of Representative 
Lujan's campaign committee, People for Ben. However, if the 
Committee found that Representative Lujan, while on the House 
Floor, directed a third-party to solicit campaign 
contributions, such conduct would raise serious questions about 
compliance with at least the spirit of 18 U.S.C. Sec.  607, 
which prohibits the solicitation of campaign contributions from 
a federal building.\53\ However, in this case, the evidence 
does not establish any improper conduct by Representative Lujan 
with respect to either the June 22 or June 23 emails from 
Boulder Strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\House Rule XXIII, clause 2, requires Members to adhere to the 
spirit as well as the letter of the Rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a threshold matter, it does not appear that either 
campaign email was actually sent at the direction of 
Representative Lujan. Boulder Strategies told OCE that the June 
22 email to supporters was already planned and largely prepared 
at the time Representative Lujan told Campaign Volunteer to 
``Get something out.''\54\ While the June 23 email was not 
planned and prepared in advance of the sit-in, it was created 
at the direction of Campaign Volunteer, with no input or 
direction from Representative Lujan.\55\ Boulder Strategies did 
send drafts of the June 22 and June 23 emails to Representative 
Lujan's campaign committee before releasing them, but it does 
not appear that those drafts were shared with Representative 
Lujan.\56\ This is significant because campaign committees are 
permitted to work, independently but simultaneously, on 
campaign matters while a Member is working on official House 
business.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\See Exhibit 4 to OCE's Referral, Interview of President of 
Boulder Strategies at 6 (``We had done a series of emails about this 
topic already. Then when the sit-in began on the House floor, we simply 
took an email that was already in the pipeline, we were already 
planning to send an email of this type, and we simply inserted the 
first line of the email that talked about him being on the floor to 
make it relevant for the day's topic.'').
    \55\Exhibit 3 to OCE's Referral, Interview of DCCC Chief of Staff 
at 58-60 (``Did you have any communication with Representative Lujan 
before you sent that communication to Boulder Strategies about another 
e-mail? [Answer]: No. Mr. Payne: So for two days you had no 
communication with [T] Representative Lujan? [Answer]: That's 
correct.'').
    \56\Exhibit 4 to OCE's Referral, Interview of President of Boulder 
Strategies at 7-11 (indicating that the President of Boulder Strategies 
crafted the language of the June 22 and June 23 emails himself, without 
input from Representative Lujan, that Representative Lujan was not 
provided drafts of the emails, and that Representative Lujan did not 
sign-off on the messages).
    \57\See Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation 
of Alleged Improper Political Solicitation, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 19 
(1985) (``In view of the foregoing, since the DCCC had no knowledge of 
Wilhelm's actions on its behalf, it follows that the DCCC should not be 
held liable for whatever actions Wilhelm took vis-a-vis the 
solicitation efforts, particularly as regards any alleged violation of 
18 U.S.C. 602 or 607. From this it, therefore, also follows that, 
absent any DCCC responsibility for the solicitations, the respondents 
should similarly not be held liable for Wilhelm's actions.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, the evidence does not show that when 
Representative Lujan gave the direction to ``Get something 
out,'' he meant that his campaign consultants should send a 
solicitation for campaign funds. Representative Lujan forwarded 
an email that another Member sent to supporters with a petition 
related to the ``No Fly No Buy'' bill. The other Member's email 
did not include any solicitation of campaign contributions.\58\ 
Thus, to the extent Representative Lujan intended his campaign 
to ``get out'' a similar petition, there would be no 
solicitation, and no violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.  607. It is 
worth noting that Representative Lujan gave Boulder Strategies 
the discretion to determine whether any particular email they 
sent from his campaign committee would be a solicitation or 
something else.\59\ Thus, he created a condition in which an 
ambiguous instruction to Boulder Strategies could be read, and 
implemented, either way. Moreover, as previously discussed, the 
Committee holds Members responsible for ensuring that campaign 
consultants who work on their behalf follow all applicable 
laws, rules, regulations, and other standard of conduct.\60\ In 
this case, however, there is no evidence that Representative 
Lujan expected, or should have expected, that when he forwarded 
a petition from another Member's campaign to his own campaign 
consultants, that would result in a campaign solicitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\See Exhibit 2 to OCE's Referral.
    \59\Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan 
at 9, 31-32; Exhibit 3 to OCE's Referral, Interview of DCCC Chief of 
Staff at 56.
    \60\Ethics Manual at 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accordingly, the Committee did not find that Representative 
Lujan violated either the letter or the spirit of the federal 
law prohibiting the solicitation of campaign donations from a 
federal building.

2. The record does not show that Representative Lujan engaged in 
        campaign activity in a House building

    While the evidence does not establish that Representative 
Lujan's email to ``Get something out'' solicited campaign 
contributions, there is a separate question whether, by sending 
the email, he engaged in any campaign or political activity 
from a House building. Doing so would violate both a federal 
statute, 31 U.S.C. Sec.  1301(a), and regulations from the 
Committee on House Administration (CHA). As previously 
discussed, the Committee and CHA have made clear that even 
``incidental'' campaign or political activity in a House 
building is not permitted.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\See id. at 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Lujan's email, on June 22, 2016, to Campaign 
Volunteer, with the direction to ``Get something out'' about 
the sit-in was clearly campaign or political activity. This 
inference is supported by the message that Representative Lujan 
forwarded with his direction, which was a petition about the 
sit-in from another Member's campaign to her supporters,\62\ 
and by Campaign Volunteer's role with Representative Lujan's 
campaign, and as a conduit between Representative Lujan and the 
paid campaign consultants at Boulder Strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\See Exhibit 2 to OCE's Referral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, any allegation that Representative Lujan engaged 
in campaign or political activity from a federal building would 
require proof that Representative Lujan was on the House Floor 
or in another federal space when he sent out his sole email at 
issue here, the instruction to ``Get something out.''\63\ After 
reviewing all of the available evidence, including C-SPAN 
footage of the sit-in, Representative Lujan's testimony to 
OCE,\64\ and contemporaneous emails and text messages from and 
between the Member and his staff, the Committee could not 
establish Representative Lujan's location when he forwarded 
another Member's petition to Campaign Volunteer. Without some 
proof of Representative Lujan's location, the Committee will 
not find that he violated the letter or spirit of federal law 
or House regulations regarding campaign activity in House 
buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\See id.
    \64\Representative Lujan recalled that he was on and off the House 
Floor, and in and out of the Capitol building, during the sit-in. See 
Exhibit 1 to OCE's Referral, Interview of Representative Lujan, at 23-
25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nonetheless, the Committee cautions all Members that 
drafting, editing, commenting on, or sending campaign or 
political communications from a House building is not 
permitted. The Committee has long recognized that there are 
certain limited campaign or political activities that, while 
related to a Member's campaign, may properly take place in a 
congressional office.\65\ However, sending a direction to a 
campaign consultant or volunteer to ``Get something out'' does 
not fall within the very limited and very specific exceptions 
to the general rule. In this age of always-on mobile 
communications, Members may find it impractical or unreasonable 
to have to exit a House building before sending a three-word 
campaign email. However, that is what the relevant law, rules, 
and regulations require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\Ethics Manual at 132-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 B. BOULDER STRATEGIES' USE OF AN IMAGE OF THE HOUSE FLOOR IN THE JUNE 
                    23, 2016, CAMPAIGN SOLICITATION

    The Committee found that Boulder Strategies' use of a still 
image of the House Floor\66\ in campaign correspondence on 
behalf of People for Ben was a technical violation of House 
Rule V, clause 2(c)(1), which prohibits partisan use of the 
``system for close-circuit viewing of floor proceedings of the 
House,'' which the Speaker administers, directs, and controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\This image was not sourced from C-SPAN's rebroadcast of images 
that House Members were broadcasting from their phones, using third-
party, nonofficial mobile applications, after the House Floor cameras 
were turned off. Rather, as previously discussed, the still image that 
Boulder Strategies used came from an Associated Press article, which 
included a screen shot from the cameras that are part of the House 
broadcasting system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While Representative Lujan's submission to the Committee 
argues that Rule V only prohibits use of video footage from 
floor proceedings and not still images,\67\ this interpretation 
finds no support in the express language of Rule V or the 
guidance historically dispensed by the Committee. House Rule V 
prohibits the use of ``[c]overage made available under this 
clause, including any recording thereof.''\68\ Limiting the 
term ``coverage'' to video recordings when the provision 
expressly lists ``recording[s]'' as simply one example of 
coverage would be inconsistent. Further, in a 2014 ``Pink 
Sheet'' distributed to all Member offices, the Committee made 
clear that Members may not re-use an image of floor proceedings 
published by a third-party, if the Member could not use that 
image in the first instance.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\Representative Lujan Submission at 9-10.
    \68\House Rule V, Clause 2(c).
    \69\See Memorandum from the Committee to all Members, ``Campaign 
Activity Guidance,'' Aug. 15, 2014, at 16 (available at http://
ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/
20140815%20Pink%20Sheet.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Lujan's submission to the Committee 
indicates that the image was originally sourced from the House 
Broadcast network, although the video capture was made by the 
Associated Press and published by them as a still image. Thus, 
Representative Lujan's campaign committee and consultant did 
not directly source the image from the House recording system, 
but made derivative use of it.\70\ However, the Committee's 
guidance has made clear that such a derivative use is not 
permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\Exhibit 4 to OCE's Referral, Interview of President of Boulder 
Strategies at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Lujan has presented evidence that he was not 
aware that Boulder Strategies would include a still image of 
the House Floor in its email correspondence, and that he played 
no part in creating or reviewing the correspondence.\71\ The 
Committee has long held that Members of the House are 
responsible for ensuring that individuals speaking on their 
behalf comply with applicable House rules.\72\ The Committee 
believes such a Rule is necessary to ensure that individuals do 
not rely upon third parties to circumvent relevant House 
rules.\73\ In this case, the Committee is satisfied that, after 
Boulder Strategies sent the email that was the subject of OCE's 
Referral, Representative Lujan took steps to prevent a 
recurrence of this issue, by instructing Boulder Strategies 
that ``[a]s a standing rule from here out,'' ``[w]e will not be 
using any images of the [H]ouse floor in any of our 
emails.''\74\ In addition, while the Committee disapproves of 
any violation of House rules, given the totality of the 
circumstances here, this is not the type of conduct that would 
merit any further action. Indeed, the Committee regularly 
addresses allegations of violations of House Rule V in an 
advisory manner, rather than investigating each such 
allegation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\While a draft of the June 23, 2016, email including the image 
of the House Floor was circulated to Campaign Volunteer and 
Representative Lujan's campaign committee approximately thirty minutes 
before its release, there is no evidence that Representative Lujan's 
campaign committee reviewed the message before it was released, and 
Campaign Volunteer appears to have provided an expedited sign-off on 
the draft message.
    \72\See Ethics Manual at 123.
    \73\In a likely oversight, Representative Lujan's agreement with 
Boulder Strategies includes a provision that Boulder Strategies shall 
``comply with the applicable Federal Election Commission regulations, 
as well as any other applicable federal or state laws,'' but does not 
contain a similar requirement with respect to compliance with House 
rules. See Exhibit 5.
    \74\Exhibit 6; Exhibit 4 to OCE's Referral, Interview of President 
of Boulder Strategies at 12 (after a follow-up conversation, ``[w]e 
agreed not to use further images from the house floor, regardless of 
their sourcing, going forward'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             VI. CONCLUSION

    As noted by OCE, ``the evolving nature of electronic 
communications and campaign solicitations sometimes presents 
novel issues that are not directly addressed by the House 
Ethics Manual.''\75\ The Committee agreed that this is an area 
where additional guidance could be useful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\OCE's Referral at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the Committee did not conclude that Representative 
Lujan made, or directed the making of, campaign solicitations 
from the House Floor or any federal building, the Committee 
cautions all Members that use of a third party to send campaign 
correspondence does not absolve them of their responsibility to 
ensure campaign correspondence complies with applicable laws 
and House rules. A Member's campaign committee or consultants 
may release campaign correspondence on the Member's behalf at 
any time, regardless of where the Member is. However, Members 
are reminded that, subject to very limited exceptions, they may 
not conduct campaign or political activity from a House 
building, whether hallway, office, or cafeteria, and thus, they 
may not draft, edit, or send campaign communications, or direct 
the drafting, editing, or sending of such communications, from 
a House building. This rule, which is embodied in federal law, 
applies even where the Member is using a personal or campaign 
communications device, and even if they are not using the House 
internet system.
    With respect to the use of a screen shot sourced from the 
House recording system, the Committee found that the campaign 
consultant's actions did violate House Rule V, and that 
Representative Lujan is ultimately responsible for that 
violation. However, there is no evidence that Representative 
Lujan was aware of the decision to use the image before it was 
included in a campaign solicitation, and Representative Lujan 
and his campaign have taken steps to prevent any recurrence of 
this issue in the future. For these reasons, the Committee does 
not believe that any sanction of Representative Lujan would be 
appropriate.
    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]