[House Report 116-473]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 88
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 116-473
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS
RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE
RASHIDA TLAIB
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
August 7, 2020.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-006 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
Chairman Ranking Member
GRACE MENG, New York GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland
REPORT STAFF
Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Brittney L. Pescatore, Director of Investigations
David Arrojo, Counsel to the Chairman
Chris Donesa, Counsel to the Ranking Member
Tanisha R. Wilburn, Counsel
Danielle Appleman, Investigator
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
August 5, 2020.
Hon. Cheryl L. Johnson,
Clerk, House of Representatives
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Johnson: 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 Rashida Tlaib.''
Sincerely,
Theodore E. Deutch,
Chairman.
Kenny Marchant,
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 TLAIB'S DECISION TO RECEIVE A SALARY FROM
THE CAMPAIGN........................................... 4
B. REPRESENTATIVE TLAIB'S POST-PRIMARY SALARY PAYMENTS..... 7
C. REPRESENTATIVE TLAIB'S POST-GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN
PAYMENTS............................................... 8
D. RESPONSE TO THE POST-ELECTION PAYMENTS.................. 11
V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS........................................13
A. PERSONAL USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS.......................... 13
1. November 16, 2018 Payment........................... 16
2. December 1, 2018 Payment............................ 17
3. Total Payment Owed by Representative Tlaib to her
Campaign........................................... 19
B. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS........ 20
VI. CONCLUSION......................................................22
VII. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c)....................23
APPENDIX A: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS (REVIEW NO. 19-4114).................................... 24
APPENDIX B: REPRESENTATIVE TLAIB'S RESPONSE TO THE OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS REFERRAL.................................. 108
APPENDIX C: EXHIBITS TO COMMITTEE REPORT......................... 120
Calendar No. 88
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 116-473
======================================================================
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE RASHIDA TLAIB
_______
August 7, 2020.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Deutch, from the Committee on Ethics,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
In accordance with House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b),
the Committee on Ethics (Committee) hereby submits the
following Report to the House of Representatives:
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 16, 2019, the Office of Congressional Ethics
(OCE) forwarded to the Committee a Report and Findings (OCE's
Referral) regarding Representative Rashida Tlaib. OCE reviewed
allegations that, Representative Tlaib's campaign committee,
Rashida Tlaib for Congress (the Campaign), reported campaign
disbursements that may not be legitimate and verifiable
campaign expenditures attributable to a bona fide campaign or
political purposes.\1\ Specifically, OCE considered whether
salary payments that Representative Tlaib received after the
2018 general election, totaling $17,500, were prohibited under
campaign finance laws and regulations governing the personal
use of campaign funds. OCE recommended that the Committee
further review the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Report and Findings of the Office of Congressional Ethics
(Review No. 19-4114) (Appendix A) (hereinafter OCE's Referral).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee, after further reviewing the allegations, has
determined that the evidence is sufficient to support a
determination that a portion of the salary payments that
Representative Tlaib received after the 2018 general election
was inconsistent with the requirements outlined by the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) and its implementing
regulations.\2\ The Committee also recognizes, however, that
Representative Tlaib's violation of the applicable restrictions
was one of bad timing and not ill intent. Representative Tlaib
engaged in good faith efforts to comply with the relevant FECA
requirements. The Committee did not find that she sought to
unjustly enrich herself by receiving the campaign funds at
issue. Indeed, during her campaign, Representative Tlaib
received a conservative amount of campaign funds, well below
the legal threshold for the maximum amount of salary she was
eligible to receive; these payments allowed her to forego her
salary from her full-time employment so that she could fully
participate in campaign activities. However, because she
received some of those funds, totaling $10,800, for time
periods in which she was no longer a congressional candidate,
those funds were inconsistent with FECA's personal use
restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\52 U.S.C. Sec. 30101, et. seq; see also 11 C.F.R. Sec.
113.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Committee directs Representative Tlaib to
reimburse her Campaign $10,800 within a year of the date of
this Report.
Based on its review, the Committee unanimously voted to
issue this Report and take no further action in this matter.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2019, OCE undertook a preliminary review of
this matter. On May 13, 2019, OCE initiated a second-phase
review of this matter. The Committee received OCE's Referral on
August 16, 2019. Representative Tlaib submitted a written
response to OCE's Referral through her attorney on August 29,
2019.\3\ On September 30, 2019, the Chairman and Ranking Member
of the Committee issued a statement announcing that they had
jointly decided to extend the Committee's consideration of
OCE's Referral regarding Representative Tlaib for an additional
45-day period.\4\ On November 14, 2019, pursuant to House and
Committee rules, the Committee publicly released OCE's
Referral, along with a copy of Representative Tlaib's written
response.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See Appendix B.
\4\House Rule XI, cl. 3(b)(8)(A); Committee Rule 17A(c)(1).
\5\House Rule XI, cl. 3(b)(8)(A)(i); Committee Rule 17A(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee reviewed all the materials provided to it by
OCE. The Committee also requested and received additional
information from Representative Tlaib. In total, the Committee
reviewed more than 600 pages of materials. The Committee also
interviewed five witnesses, including Representative Tlaib, who
fully cooperated with the Committee's investigation.
On July 23, 2020, the Committee unanimously voted to adopt
this Report and take no further action with respect to
Representative Tlaib.
III. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
Federal laws and regulations regulate the use of a
congressional candidate's campaign funds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\House Ethics Manual (2008) at 152 (hereinafter Ethics Manual).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FECA, and its implementing regulations, states that
contributions or donations ``received by an individual as
support for activities of the individual as a holder of Federal
office'' may not be ``converted by any person to personal
use.''\7\ The term ``personal use'' is defined as using
campaign funds ``to fulfill a commitment, obligation, or
expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the
candidate's campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder.''\8\
In the regulations, an example of a ``personal use'' includes a
candidate's receipt of salary payments unless certain
conditions are met.\9\ These conditions require that the salary
payments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\52 U.S.C. Sec. 30114(a), (b)(1).
\8\11 C.F.R. Sec. 113.1(g) (defining the term ``personal use'');
52 U.S.C. Sec. 30114(b)(2).
\9\11 C.F.R. Sec. 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
only be paid from the candidate's principal
campaign committee;
not exceed the minimum salary for the
Federal office sought and any salary or wages the
candidate receives from another source will count
towards the limit of the minimum annual salary for the
Federal office sought;
not exceed what the candidate received as
earned income in the year prior to becoming a
candidate;
be computed on a pro-rata basis;
not be paid to an incumbent Federal
officeholder;
not be paid before the filing deadline for
access to the primary election ballot for Federal
candidates, as determined by State law, and, if the
candidate wins the primary election, the salary must be
paid through the date of the general election.
Alternatively, if the candidate loses the primary
election, withdraws from the race, or otherwise ceases
to be a candidate, salary payments cannot be made
beyond that date; and
the candidate must provide income tax
records from the relevant years and other evidence of
earned income upon request of the FEC.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Id. Sec. 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I) (describing the seven requirements
for a candidate's receipt of salary payments from a campaign
committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to restrictions on the use of campaign funds,
FECA requires that candidates report certain information to the
FEC describing the use of the funds.\11\ These reporting
requirements include, for example, reporting whether the
campaign committee has any outstanding debts or
obligations.\12\ A debt or obligation can include ``a loan,
written contract, written promise, or written agreement to make
an expenditure'' as well as ``rent, salary or other regularly
reoccurring administrative expense.''\13\ With regard to
reporting a candidate's salary, the FEC has emphasized that
because the salary ``will be fully disclosed to the public,
those who contribute to the campaign and who support the
candidate will be able to voice their approval, or disapproval
of this use of campaign funds.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\See 52 U.S.C. Sec. 30104(a)(2) (explaining the reporting
requirements for a House candidate's principal campaign committee); see
also 11 C.F.R. Sec. 104.1 (defining the scope of the reporting
requirements).
\12\See id. Sec. 30104(b)(8) (requiring the disclosure of ``the
amount and nature of outstanding debts and obligations owed by or to
such political committee''); see also 11 C.F.R. Sec. 104.11(a), (b)
(explaining the reporting requirements for debts and obligations).
\13\ 11 C.F.R. Sec. 104.11(b).
\14\Disclaimers, Fraudulent Solicitation, Civil Penalties, and
Personal Use of Campaign Funds; 67 Fed. Reg. 76962, 76972 73 (Dec. 13,
2002) (to be codified at 11 C.F.R. pt. 113).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The personal use of campaign funds may also implicate the
Code of Official Conduct. Specifically, 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.''
Finally, the House Code of Official Conduct subjects
Members to additional restrictions relating to the personal use
of campaign funds.\15\ The Ethics Manual explains that
``campaign funds are to be used for bona fide campaign or
political activity only . . . not to . . . enhance a Member's
lifestyle, or to pay a Member's personal obligations.''\16\ The
Ethics Manual acknowledges, however, that ``Members have wide
discretion in determining what constitutes a bona fide campaign
or political purpose to which campaign funds and resources may
be devoted.''\17\ Nonetheless, the Ethics Manual cautions that
``Members have no discretion whatsoever to convert campaign
funds to personal use.''\18\ Moreover, the Ethics Manual
advises that a ``Member's use of campaign funds for federal
office is permissible only if it complies with the provisions
of both the House Rules and FECA.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\House Rule XXIII, cl. 6(a)-(c).
\16\Ethics Manual at 173 (emphasis in original).
\17\Id.
\18\Id. (emphasis in original).
\19\Id. at 152 (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. BACKGROUND
On February 5, 2018, Representative Tlaib registered her
principal campaign committee, Rashida Tlaib for Congress (the
Campaign), with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).\20\ On
February 6, 2018, Representative Tlaib announced her candidacy
for Michigan's 13th congressional district election.\21\ At the
time she announced her candidacy, Representative Tlaib worked
as the Community Partnerships Director at the Maurice and Jane
Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice (Sugar Law
Center).\22\ In 2017, a year prior to her congressional
campaign, Representative Tlaib's total income was $129,357--she
earned $42,500 from her full-time employment with the Sugar Law
Center, she received a $85,307 stipend from a fellowship, and
she also received $1,500 from consulting arrangements with two
organizations.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Rashida Tlaib for Congress, Statement of Organization (Feb 5,
2018).
\21\Todd Spangler, Former Michigan state Rep. Rashida Tlaib to seek
Conyers' seat in Congress, Detroit Free Press, (Feb. 6, 2018), https://
www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/02/06/rashida-tlaib-
running-congress-conyers-seat/310378002/.
\22\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\23\See Exhibit 1; see also 18(a) Interview of Representative
Rashida Tlaib.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. REPRESENTATIVE TLAIB'S DECISION TO RECEIVE A SALARY FROM THE
CAMPAIGN
Shortly after announcing her candidacy, Representative
Tlaib began performing campaign work full-time in March 2018,
thereby significantly reducing her hours and income from her
employment with the Sugar Law Center.\24\ Ultimately, given the
intensity of her campaign schedule, starting in May 2018,
Representative Tlaib only worked for the Sugar Law Center on an
as-needed basis; approximately seven hours per week.\25\
Additionally, in comparison to the prior year, in 2018,
Representative Tlaib did not receive a stipend from her
fellowship, and only received a small amount of income for her
consulting work.\26\ As a result, shortly after reducing her
hours with the Sugar Law Center, Representative Tlaib
``realized [that she] was going to have some issues paying
[her] bills.''\27\ Thus, on April 4, 2018, she informed her
campaign managers, Campaign Staffer A and Campaign Staffer B,
that she was experiencing personal financial difficulties and
asked about receiving a one-time, $5,000 loan from the
Campaign.\28\ Representative Tlaib testified that she only
sought $5,000 at that time because she ``wanted to be
conservative'' and because she ``didn't know if [the Campaign]
had the money'' to pay her.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\25\Id.; see also Exhibit 1 (reporting that Representative Tlaib
began a ``limited leave of absence'' from her position with the Sugar
Law Center in May 2018, which reduced her compensation to 7.2 hours per
week).
\26\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib; see also
Exhibit 1.
\27\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\28\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 2.
\29\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Representative Tlaib's request for funds
from the Campaign, her campaign managers told her that they
wanted to seek legal guidance to determine what was permissible
under the law before taking action.\30\ A few weeks after her
initial email, on April 27, 2018, Representative Tlaib reached
out to her campaign staff and indicated that she was ``not
going to make it through the campaign without a stipend'' and
requested ``$2,000 per two weeks but not exceeding $12,000''
from the Campaign.\31\ Representative Tlaib testified that she
requested this amount because she was ``thinking of how much .
. . [she] need[ed] to be able to pay for childcare . . . [her]
bills, [her] mortgage and [her] rent.''\32\ She also testified
that she increased her request from a one-time payment of
$5,000 because she was ``more in debt by that time'' and
because she thought the new amount would get her through the
primary election.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 2; see also 18(a) Interview of
Campaign Staffer A.
\31\OCE's Referral, Exhibit 3.
\32\See 18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\33\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 27, 2018, the same day that Representative Tlaib
proposed the $2,000 bimonthly stipend, Campaign Staffer B
received legal guidance confirming that the use of campaign
funds to pay a candidate a salary is permissible subject to
certain conditions.\34\ Even if legally permissible, however,
both Campaign Staffer B and Campaign Staffer A had concerns
about the political risks associated with Representative
Tlaib's receipt of a campaign salary.\35\ Campaign Staffer A
testified that there were concerns that she would be exposed to
political attacks because receiving a salary from a campaign is
still viewed as ``a somewhat uncommon thing.''\36\ Notably, the
legal guidance regarding the campaign salary was not
immediately conveyed to Representative Tlaib by campaign
staff.\37\ As a result, on May 7, 2018, she informed her
campaign staff that if she could not receive funding from the
Campaign, she would need to return to the Sugar Law Center to
work part-time.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\See Exhibit 2; see also 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A
(stating that the campaign committee did not issue Representative Tlaib
any salary payments before hearing back from their attorney).
\35\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 4 (Email from Campaign Staffer B to
Campaign Staffer A suggesting that Representative Tlaib's receipt of a
campaign salary ``ha[d] the potential to be a bad story.'').
\36\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A.
\37\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib (stating that
her campaign staffers ``took a while to respond to [her] . . . every
time [she] brought . . . up'' the salary issue).
\38\See Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the urgency of Representative Tlaib's
request, Campaign Staffer A advised her that ``[t]he campaign
can pay [her] no more than [what she] made in income [in 2017]
on a monthly basis. [W]e just accept that it may become a
political issue.''\39\ He also advised her that she would have
to make the decision to accept salary payments from the
Campaign and that she could receive approximately $7,900 per
month.\40\ Campaign Staffer A testified that at the time he
advised Representative Tlaib that she could receive $7,900 per
month in salary, it was based on his own calculations ``by
taking her income from the previous year and dividing it by
12''; he acknowledged, however, that it was ``an erroneous
calculation.''\41\ Indeed, based on the May 2018 Financial
Disclosure Statement that Representative Tlaib filed a few
months after declaring her candidacy, her 2017 monthly income
was approximately $9,300 per month.\42\ Subsequently, after
receiving updated financial information, Representative Tlaib
filed an Amended Financial Disclosure Statement in December
2018, which clarified that she had actually received
approximately $10,700 per month in 2017.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 1.
\40\Id. See also 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A.
\41\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A.
\42\See Exhibit 4.
\43\See Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Tlaib testified that she does not know how
Campaign Staffer A made the $7,900 per month salary
determination.\44\ Ultimately, however, she chose to receive
$4,000 per month because she ``was trying to be as conservative
as possible'' and because she wanted to stay within the
Campaign's budget.\45\ Therefore, on May 7, 2018, Campaign
Staffer C, the campaign treasurer at the time, issued
Representative Tlaib her first salary payment for $2,000.\46\
Thereafter, Representative Tlaib received bimonthly $2,000
payments throughout the primary season during the same pay
periods as the other campaign staffers.\47\ Representative
Tlaib did not enter into a contract or written agreement with
the Campaign regarding the terms of her receipt of the salary
payments.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\45\Id.
\46\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer C.
\47\See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E.
\48\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A; 18(a) Interview of
Representative Rashida Tlaib.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2018, a few months after Representative Tlaib began
receiving the salary payments, the press began to report on the
payments.\49\ Campaign Staffer A testified that the Campaign
viewed the press reporting on the payments as ``distressing''
and ``disappoint[ing].''\50\ In response to the reporting, the
Campaign emphasized that Representative Tlaib's payments were
far less than what she was entitled to receive under applicable
FEC rules.\51\ The Campaign was also able to ``fundraise[]
off'' of the attention it received because of the payments.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\See Exhibit 5 (Email from Rashida Tlaib to Campaign Staffer F,
Campaign Staffer A, and Campaign Staffer B, telling them a reporter
``called to ask why [she] [was] paying [her]self].''). The campaign
committee initially disclosed the salary payments a few weeks before
the August 7 primary election. See, e.g., Rashida Tlaib for Congress,
July 2018 Quarterly Report of Receipts and Disbursements, at 298 99
(July 15, 2018) (reporting Representative Tlaib's salary payments
issued on May 7, May 16, June 1, and June 16, 2018). A press report
about the payments was published just three days after the July 2018
Quarterly Report. See Melissa Nann Burke and Beth LeBlanc, U.S. House
hopeful Tlaib pays self salary from campaign funds, The Detroit News
(July 18, 2018), https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2018/
07/18/tlaib-pays-self-salary-congress-campaign/797307002/ (hereinafter
Detroit News Article).
\50\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A.
\51\See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A; see also
Detroit News Article (quoting the Campaign's spokesman as stating that
Representative Tlaib ``is actually entitled to `far more' under FEC
guidelines than the $4,000 a month she has elected to pay herself
during the campaign'').
\52\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. REPRESENTATIVE TLAIB'S POST-PRIMARY SALARY PAYMENTS
On August 23, 2018, a few weeks after she won her August
7th primary election, Representative Tlaib asked Campaign
Staffer A and her campaign finance director, Campaign Staffer
D, to confirm whether she could continue to receive the salary
payments.\53\ The staffers confirmed that the Campaign could
afford to continue the payments, but also advised her that she
may receive political attacks and negative press reporting if
she did so--similar to the reaction she had received when the
Campaign reported the payments before the primary.\54\ Campaign
Staffer D also advised Representative Tlaib about the political
risks associated with returning to work at the Sugar Law Center
part-time while still being paid by the Campaign.\55\
Ultimately, Representative Tlaib decided not to return to work
after the primary election as she had previously planned
because of her unrelenting campaign schedule.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 7.
\54\See id.; see also 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A.
\55\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 7.
\56\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Around the same time that Representative Tlaib reached out
to Campaign Staffer A and Campaign Staffer D to confirm the
continuation of her salary payments, she asked Campaign Staffer
C to create a budget for the campaign staff's salaries for the
general election.\57\ Campaign Staffer C's budget included a
proposal to increase Representative Tlaib's salary payments
from $4,000 to $6,000 per month.\58\ Campaign Staffer C told
the Committee she does not recall whether Representative Tlaib
specifically requested a salary increase at that time; she also
said she does not remember why she suggested $6,000 as the
proposal or Representative Tlaib's reaction to the
proposal.\59\ According to Campaign Staffer C, she only recalls
that she was aware that Representative Tlaib ``was having
trouble making her ends meet [and] covering all of her expenses
with the $2,000 bi[monthly] amount, [so she] bumped [the
amount] up.''\60\ Representative Tlaib confirmed that she
received Campaign Staffer C's budget, but was not familiar with
the $6,000 per month proposal.\61\ Additionally, although they
were included in Campaign Staffer C's communications regarding
the budget proposal, Campaign Staffer A and Campaign Staffer D
testified that they did not have any knowledge of the
proposal.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\Id.
\58\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer C.
\59\Id.
\60\Id.
\61\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\62\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A; 18(a) Interview of
Campaign Staffer D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing the amount of Representative Tlaib's salary
payments was an ongoing discussion among senior campaign staff
during the campaign. For example, Campaign Staffer E, who
served as the Campaign treasurer from early May 2018 to
approximately March 2019,\63\ and Campaign Staffer D testified
that they recall Representative Tlaib requesting to be paid
more during the 2018 election cycle.\64\ Representative Tlaib
told the Committee that she does not recall requesting an
increase in salary payments; she only remembers discussing the
continuation of the payments after the primary election because
of the amount of campaign work she performed.\65\ Ultimately,
Representative Tlaib's salary remained at $4,000 per month
through the general election.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E (confirming that May
2, 2018 corresponds with the time that he became treasurer for the
Campaign); see id. (confirming that the Campaign offered the treasurer
position to Sonya McGrady in March 2019, but that he worked in a
transitional capacity for a few months after that time). Campaign
Staffer E has returned to his role as the Campaign's treasurer as of
April 2020. See Rashida Tlaib for Congress, Statement of Organization,
at 1 (Apr. 22, 2020) (listing Campaign Staffer E as treasurer).
\64\See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E (stating that
Representative Tlaib mentioned several times ``half-jokingly'' that she
wanted to be paid more by the campaign committee); 18(a) Interview of
Campaign Staffer D (indicating that Representative Tlaib may have asked
for an increase in her salary before or after the primary election
because she had ``some financial hardships''); see also 18(a) Interview
of Campaign Staffer A (stating that increasing Representative Tlaib's
salary payments was ``something that frequently [the campaign
committee] wanted to do for her'').
\65\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\66\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 10. Representative Tlaib received
two $3,000 payments in August 2018 to account for three-week pay
periods. See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When asked why Representative Tlaib did not receive a
salary increase despite her requests, Campaign Staffer D
indicated that it would have been Representative Tlaib's
decision not to increase her salary.\67\ He also testified that
the decision could have been motivated by several factors such
as ensuring that the Campaign had sufficient resources for the
election and the ``potential for political attacks'' from her
opponents.\68\ According to Campaign Staffer D, there were also
discussions among senior campaign staff about ``delaying
[Representative Tlaib's salary] payment[s] until after [a FEC]
deadline'' because she had received criticism in the press, and
from her opponents, after the payments had been reported in the
Campaign's July 2018 FEC filings.\69\ As a result, campaign
resources and political considerations may have impacted the
decision about whether and when to increase Representative
Tlaib's salary payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D; see also 18(a) Interview
of Campaign Staffer E (stating that in response to Representative
Tlaib's request for a salary increase, she spoke to Campaign Staffer A
and Campaign Staffer B, but they indicated that the payments should
remain the same).
\68\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D.
\69\Id.; see also 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A (stating
that ``we did, in fact, receive the political attacks we were worried
about in the primary'' because of the salary payments and that he
advised Representative Tlaib she would likely receive political attacks
again if she continued receiving a salary after the primary, but noting
that the payments did not have to be publicly disclosed until the
campaign committee filed its October 2018 Quarterly Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. REPRESENTATIVE TLAIB'S POST-GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN PAYMENTS
Representative Tlaib won her general election on November
6, 2018.\70\ Within days of her election, Campaign Staffer E
issued her a $2,000 payment on November 16, 2018 (the same date
on which he issued paychecks to other campaign staff for the
November 1, 2018 to November 15, 2018 pay period).\71\ Campaign
Staffer E testified that it was his understanding, based on
communications with Campaign Staffer A, that Representative
Tlaib would only be paid a salary through election day.\72\
However, because he did not issue any salary payments on
election day, Representative Tlaib's November 16 payment
represented the amount owed to her ``only up to the point of
the election day.''\73\ Representative Tlaib has asserted,
through counsel, that the November 16 payment ``make[s] up some
of the difference between what she was entitled to receive for
her service through Election Day . . . and what the Campaign
had previously paid her for services rendered through that
date'' and that it ``cover[s] the period through the November 6
general election.''\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\See Todd Spangler and Kat Stafford, Rashida Tlaib becomes John
Conyers' full-term replacement in Congress, Detroit Free Press (Nov. 6,
2018), https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/11/06/
michigan-13-th-district-results-tlaib-jones/1737484002/.
\71\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 10.
\72\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E.
\73\Id.
\74\Appendix B at 3, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Committee staff asked Campaign Staffer E to explain
why the November 16 payment was not prorated to reflect a
shorter pay period--e.g., a pay period from November 1 to
November 6--he speculated that it was because Representative
Tlaib was working on election day.\75\ Contemporaneous campaign
records show, however, that the November 16 payment was a
salary payment meant to cover the pay period from November 1 to
November 15.\76\ Indeed, a notation on the check states
``salary (11/1-11/15)'' on the memo line.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E.
\76\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 9.
\77\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 21, 2018, Campaign Staffer E sent Campaign
Staffer D a spreadsheet he created that included ``the list of
[campaign] staff with projected amounts to be paid [to them] on
12/1/2018.''\78\ The spreadsheet has been recreated below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 12.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Based on Campaign Staffer E's projections in the
spreadsheet, Representative Tlaib was supposed to receive
$2,000 as the ``[a]mount owed through Nov. 30, 2018''; $6,000
as the ``[a]mount owed for the month of December''; and $7,500
as an ``adjustment to be made for the previous payments.''\79\
Consistent with these projections, Representative Tlaib's
December 1, 2018, payment would total $15,500.\80\ Campaign
Staffer E testified that the information in the spreadsheet
``most likely'' came from Campaign Staffer D.\81\ However,
Campaign Staffer D indicated that his involvement with the
spreadsheet was limited to ensuring that the amounts he was
owed by the Campaign were accurate.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\See id.
\80\See id.
\81\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E; see, e.g., id.
(testifying that Campaign Staffer D had input regarding ``how to
calculate the back payment amount, but not the specifics,'' so it was
``possible'' that he provided the calculation for the adjustment
amount--$7,500).
\82\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When questioned by Committee staff to explain how he
determined the amounts that corresponded to Representative
Tlaib, Campaign Staffer E testified that he ``probably
start[ed] the calculation with [the $15,500 amount and] . . .
[t]hen . . . allocated that amount into the budget lines.''\83\
Campaign Staffer E indicated, however, that he does not know
the origin of the $15,500 amount.\84\ He also stated that even
though the calculation listed under the ``Notes'' column in the
spreadsheet--``$2,000/mo for 3.75 mo.''--adds up to the $7,500
amount under the ``Adjustment'' column, he does not know the
origin of the $7,500 amount either.\85\ Other senior campaign
staffers--who had experience with the Campaign's finances and
budget during the campaign--also denied knowledge of the
origins of the projections listed for Representative Tlaib in
the spreadsheet.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E; see id. (stating that
the $6,000 for the month of December was ``probably th[e] amount [that]
was left unspent so [he] probably aligned that and balanced it out'').
\84\Id.
\85\Id.
\86\See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D; see also 18(a)
Interview of Campaign Staffer C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Tlaib testified that she has never seen the
spreadsheet before and is unfamiliar with most of the
information contained in the spreadsheet.\87\ She also
testified, however, that she believes that the $2,000 payment
proposed through the end of November 30 was a continuation of
the salary payments that she had been receiving.\88\
Additionally, she indicated that even though she does not
recall having any discussions about the $7,500 amount, she
believes that the ``Adjustment'' column is related to her
``working full time at a campaign and [the Campaign] pay[ing]
[her an] additional amount.''\89\ Furthermore, she believes
that the ``3.75/mo.'' time period referenced in the ``Notes''
column was related to the period after the ``primary until
November . . . [b]ecause [she] kept . . . working up until the
. . . [general] election.''\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\88\Id.
\89\Id.
\90\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 1, 2018, Campaign Staffer E issued the $15,500
payment to Representative Tlaib.\91\ The consensus among senior
campaign staff interviewed by the Committee, and the
congresswoman herself, is that at the time this payment was
made, Representative Tlaib's post-election payments represented
compensation for work she performed prior to the election.\92\
Specifically, all witnesses interviewed by the Committee
contend that she received less than her legal threshold amount
with the understanding that she could receive some kind of
``back pay'' or ``deferred compensation'' at a later date.\93\
Representative Tlaib confirmed that she ``remember[s]
specifically saying [that she] want[ed] to get back pay'' and
that she wanted to receive additional compensation because she
had been unable to return to work after the August primary.\94\
Thus, the $15,500 payment ``was the adjustment for the work
[she] did throughout the campaign.''\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 10.
\92\See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E; 18(a) Interview of
Campaign Staffer A; 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer C; Interview of
Campaign Staffer D; 18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\93\See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A (stating that
the campaign committee was ``paying [Representative Tlaib] less than
what she was entitled to'' during the campaign so ``the payments in
November and December were intended to catch up some of what she had
been owed to the extent [the campaign committee] had funds available to
pay it''); 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D (explaining that
Representative Tlaib was ``entitled to pay herself significantly more
over the course of the campaign,'' but ``rather than paying herself the
full amount that she could and should [have received], she was only
receiving . . . smaller checks to try to limit how much was coming out
of the campaign so that she could use those resources for other
things'').
\94\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\95\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there is consensus among the witnesses regarding
the reasoning for the post-general election payments, there is
a notable lack of consensus regarding when Representative Tlaib
and the Campaign made the decision to defer the payments. For
example, some former senior campaign staff testified that they
did not know when the decision was made, but indicated that it
was likely made around the time of the general election.\96\ In
contrast, other former senior campaign staff, such as Campaign
Staffer D and Representative Tlaib, indicated that the post-
general election payments were an ongoing discussion that
started around the time of the primary election.\97\ Indeed,
according to Campaign Staffer D, one of the reasons that
Representative Tlaib decided to defer additional compensation
after the primary was because she had a write-in challenger in
the general election campaign and needed to dedicate the
Campaign's resources to that effort.\98\ Thus, it is unclear
when Representative Tlaib entered into an agreement to receive
``back pay'' or ``deferred compensation'' from the Campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A (stating that
he does not know when the campaign committee made the decision to pay
Representative Tlaib for work she performed prior to the election, but
that he believes the decision was made after the election); 18(a)
Interview of Campaign Staffer E (indicating that he learned about the
nature of the December 1 payment from Campaign Staffer A in November).
\97\See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D (indicating
that there were ongoing discussions about deferring Representative
Tlaib's salary payments and that these discussions took place around
the primary election); 18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib
(testifying that she remembers having discussions regarding ``back
pay'' after the primary election and before the general election).
\98\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. RESPONSE TO THE POST-ELECTION PAYMENTS
The Campaign filed FEC reports disclosing Representative
Tlaib's post-general election payments in early December 2018
and late January 2019.\99\ Beginning in March 2019, various
news reports raised allegations that the timing of the payments
may be inconsistent with FEC requirements.\100\ Shortly
thereafter, Campaign Staffer E created a chart ``in response to
how Congresswoman Tlaib's payments were distributed''; the
chart provides a ``breakdown of [the] payments [issued] to
Representative Tlaib'' during the campaign.\101\ The chart has
been reproduced below.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\See Rashida Tlaib for Congress, 2018 30-Day Post-General Report
of Receipts and Disbursements, at 90 (Dec. 5, 2018); Rashida Tlaib for
Congress, 2018 Year-End Report of Receipts and Disbursements, at 32
(Jan. 21, 2019).
\100\See, e.g., Joe Schoffstall, Rashida Tlaib Paid Herself $45,550
From Campaign Funds: Made $17,550 in payments following election,
Washington Free Beacon (Mar. 1, 2019), https://freebeacon.com/politics/
rashida-tlaib-paid-herself-45500-from-campaign-funds/ (emphasizing the
timing of the two payments and quoting from FEC regulations explaining
the permissible time period to receive a salary from a campaign
committee); Lukas Mikelionis, Rashida Tlaib's campaign paid her $17,500
in salary after Election Day, in possible violation of FEC rules:
report, Fox News (Mar. 2, 2019), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/
rashida-tlaib-faces-questions-after-data-shows-campaign-paid-her-17500-
salary-in-two-weeks-after-election-day (questioning whether
Representative Tlaib's ``campaign broke the rules after making salary
payments to [her] after Election Day [in 2018]'').
\101\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E; see id. (stating that
he believes that the chart was created in 2019); 18(a) Interview of
Campaign Staffer A (stating that Campaign Staffer E created the chart
at the direction of the Campaign's attorney).
\102\Exhibit 6. The original chart included three dates with the
year 2019; Campaign Staffer E acknowledged that this was an error and
that the years for these dates should be 2018. See 18(a) Interview of
Campaign Staffer E.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Period Salary
Pay Period Starts Ends Paid On Amount Paid Deferred
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.............. 5/7/2018 $2,000.00 $-
4/24/2019....................................... 4/30/2019 5/16/2018 $2,000.00 $1,000.00
5/1/2019........................................ 5/15/2018 6/1/2018 $2,000.00 $1,000.00
5/16/2018....................................... 5/31/2018 6/16/2018 $2,000.00 $1,000.00
6/1/2018........................................ 6/15/2018 7/1/2018 $2,000.00 $1,000.00
6/16/2018....................................... 6/30/2018 7/16/2018 $2,000.00 $1,000.00
7/1/2018........................................ 7/15/2018 8/1/2018 $2,000.00 $1,000.00
7/16/2018....................................... 8/7/2018 8/11/2018 $3,000.00 $1,500.00
8/8/2018........................................ 8/31/2018 8/29/2018 $3,000.00 $1,500.00
9/1/2018........................................ 9/15/2018 9/16/2018 $2,000.00 $1,300.00
9/16/2018....................................... 9/30/2018 10/1/2018 $2,000.00 $1,300.00
10/1/2018....................................... 10/15/2018 10/16/2018 $2,000.00 $1,300.00
10/16/2018...................................... 10/31/2018 11/1/2018 $2,000.00 $1,300.00
11/1/2018....................................... 11/6/2018 11/16/2018 $2,000.00 $1,300.00
.............. 12/1/2018 $15,500.00
.............. .............. $45,500.00 $15,500.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the information Campaign Staffer E included in this
chart is inconsistent with contemporaneous campaign
records.\103\ The most notable difference, however, is the
inclusion of the various ``salary deferred'' amounts; no other
campaign documents reference this information.\104\ Campaign
Staffer E explained that the phrase ``salary deferred'' means
``[b]ack pay or [the] amount that [Representative Tlaib] was
supposed to get that she didn't get paid.''\105\ He also
indicated that the ``salary deferred'' amounts ``tall[y] up to
[$15,500] for the payment for December 1st.''\106\ When
questioned by Committee staff about the source of the ``salary
deferred'' amounts, Campaign Staffer E testified that he did
not ``recall the specifics'' but that the amounts were probably
given to him by either Campaign Staffer A or Campaign Staffer
D.\107\ Both former campaign staffers, however, denied
knowledge about the source of the amounts, as did Campaign
Staffer C.\108\ Representative Tlaib also denied knowledge
about the source of the amounts, but testified that she recalls
discussing a back pay proposal involving ``an additional maybe
thousand or so every paycheck.''\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\For example, a spreadsheet that Campaign Staffer E updated
during the campaign listed ``4/16-4/30'' for Representative Tlaib's May
16 payment in comparison to the ``4/24-4/30'' pay period included in
the chart above. See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 9. The same spreadsheet
listed ``11/1-11/15'' for Representative Tlaib's November 16 payment in
comparison to the ``11/1-11/6'' pay period included in the chart above.
See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 9. Campaign Staffer E could not adequately
explain these discrepancies. See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E.
\104\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E.
\105\Id.
\106\Id.
\107\Id.
\108\See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A (stating that the
``salary deferred'' column ``was how [Campaign Staffer E] was
calculating the adjustment that had been made'' for Representative
Tlaib, but also confirming that he did not ``have input'' for the
information in the column); 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D
(stating that he does not know where the salary deferred amounts came
from and did not have any input into the amounts); 18(a) Interview of
Campaign Staffer C.
\109\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign Staffer E acknowledged that the ``salary
deferred'' payments could have been considered a debt owed by
the Campaign during the election cycle, and thus may have been
required to be reported as such in FEC filings, but that he did
not do so because he ``wasn't aware of the back payment''
during the campaign.\110\ Campaign Staffer D and Campaign
Staffer C were not aware of any discussions among the
Campaign's staff about reporting the deferred payments as
debt.\111\ Campaign Staffer D stated, however, that he
understood during the campaign that Representative Tlaib's
deferred payments were ``funding that she was owed and entitled
to, that . . . [the Campaign] would be paying her to the extent
money could be raised after the general to . . . cover
that.''\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E.
\111\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D; 18(a) Interview of
Campaign Staffer C.
\112\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D; see 11 C.F.R. Sec.
110.1(b)(3)(iii)(B) (stating that a candidate and his or her campaign
committee may accept contributions made after the date of the election
if the contributions do not exceed amounts sufficient to retire any
remaining debt); 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D (confirming that
``[a]fter the general election, the committee can raise money to pay
off a debt'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
As a candidate, Representative Tlaib had an obligation to
act in accordance with the strict technical requirements of
federal campaign laws and regulations, including the
restrictions on personal use of campaign funds; as a Member-
elect, Representative Tlaib was also on notice of her
responsibility to act in a manner consistent with the more
general ethical standards of the House.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\The Committee has jurisdiction to investigate the conduct of
Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives. The
Committee has long found that its jurisdiction also includes the
conduct of a Member in connection with his or her successful election
because the conduct may impact the integrity of the House. See House
Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative
Jay Kim, H. Rept. 105-797, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. (1998); House Comm. on
Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Earl F.
Hilliard, H. Rept. 107-130, 107th Cong. 1st Sess. (2001); Statement of
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ethics Regarding
Representative Michael Grimm (Nov. 26, 2012); Comm. on Ethics, In the
Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Ruben Kihuen, H. Rept.
115-1041, 115th Cong. 2d Sess. (2018). The allegations against
Representative Tlaib involve conduct that occurred in connection with
her successful election to the House, during the time she was a Member-
elect of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. PERSONAL USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS
The FEC's personal use regulations restrict the time period
in which a candidate can receive a salary from his or her
principal campaign committee.\114\ The regulations state that
``[i]f the candidate wins the primary election, his or her
principal campaign committee may pay him or her a salary from
campaign funds through the date of the general election.''\115\
The regulations reiterate, however, that ``[i]f the candidate .
. . ceases to be a candidate, no salary payments may be paid
beyond the date he or she is no longer a candidate.''\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\See 11 C.F.R. Sec. 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I).
\115\Id.
\116\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FEC has provided some analysis of the candidate salary
regulations in its enforcement cases, known as Matters Under
Review (MURs), which are handled by the Office of General
Counsel.\117\ For example, in Mowrer for Iowa, et al. (MUR
7068), a candidate received two salary payments from his
campaign committee after the date of his general election on
November 4, 2014--a payment on November 15 covering the period
from November 1 to November 15 and a payment on December 5
covering the period from November 16 to November 30.\118\ The
Respondents in the matter disputed that the payments violated
the personal use restrictions by asserting that ``the
regulations are not clear as to whether the pay periods must
fall within the regulations' window or whether the window is
used merely for calculating the permissible salary
amount.''\119\ The Acting General Counsel, however, noted that
``[t]he controlling factor . . . is that some of the salary
payments covered the period after [the candidate] ceased to be
a candidate, and were thus impermissible.''\120\ As a result,
the FEC ultimately concluded that the Respondents violated the
personal use restriction to the extent that they used campaign
funds to make salary payments to the candidate during the
period in which he was no longer a candidate--i.e., the period
from November 5 to November 30.\121\ Thus, the time period
covered by the payment in question is crucial to the analysis
of whether a candidate's salary is permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\Enforcing federal campaign finance law, FEC, https://
www.fec.gov/legal-resources/enforcement/ (``Enforcement cases are
primarily handled by the Office of General Counsel and are known as
Matters Under Review (MURs).'').
\118\See MUR 7068, First Gen. Counsel's Rpt. at 2, 6.
\119\Id. at 5.
\120\Id. at 6 (emphasis added).
\121\MUR 7068, Conciliation Agreement at 3-5; see id. at 3-4
(determining the portion of the salary that did not violate the
personal use restriction by calculating the amount ``covering November
1 through November 4, 2014, the day of the general election, when
Mowrer was a candidate'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FEC's MURs have not specifically stated whether
``deferred compensation'' or ``back pay'' arrangements are
permissible under the personal use regulation. In Kalyn Free
for Congress, et al. (MUR 5787), however, the FEC indirectly
addressed this issue.\122\ In that matter, the campaign
committee issued two salary payments totaling $50,000 to the
candidate two months after she lost her primary election and
reported the payments as a debt to the candidate.\123\ In
response, the FEC's Reports Analysis Division (RAD) sent a
Request for Additional Information to the campaign committee,
noting that salary payments made after the primary election
constituted personal use of campaign funds and directing the
campaign committee to seek a full reimbursement from the
candidate and notify the FEC of the reimbursement.\124\
Thereafter, the committee filed a statement explaining that the
candidate would refund the committee the salary paid to her in
excess of the maximum amount permitted for the time period
prior to the primary election.\125\ RAD then requested evidence
demonstrating that the committee had an obligation to pay the
candidate a salary before the primary election date.\126\ In
response, the campaign committee's former campaign manager
asserted that it was always the committee's intention to pay
the candidate a salary based on an oral agreement between
himself and the candidate that took place months before the
primary election.\127\ The former campaign manager also stated
that the candidate ``agreed to defer payment of her salary
until the end of the campaign to ensure that all campaign bills
and staff were paid.''\128\ Ultimately, RAD referred the matter
to the Office of General Counsel for additional review.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\See generally MUR 5787, First Gen. Counsel's Rpt.; MUR 5787,
Conciliation Agreement.
\123\MUR 5787, First Gen. Counsel's Rpt. at 2-3.
\124\Id. at 3.
\125\Id. at 3-4.
\126\Id. at 4.
\127\Id.
\128\Id. at 4-5.
\129\Id. at 4; see generally MUR 5787, Reports Analysis Referral to
Office of General Counsel (July 19, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the First General Counsel's Report for MUR 5787, the
General Counsel determined that the campaign manager's
statements were insufficient to resolve the issue, suggesting
instead that an affidavit from the campaign manager and the
candidate that ``attest[ed] to the oral agreement'' about the
deferred compensation would have been more persuasive.\130\
Thus, the Office of the General Counsel recommended that the
FEC find reason to believe that a personal use violation had
occurred.\131\ The Office also ``recommend[ed] an investigation
to obtain evidence regarding the [c]ommittee's purported
agreement to pay a . . . salary'' to the candidate.\132\ The
FEC found reason to believe the personal use violation occurred
and authorized an investigation, as recommended. The FEC
explained its actions in the accompanying Factual and Legal
Analysis that mirrored the First General Counsel's Report,
including a discussion of the campaign committee's assertion
that there was an oral agreement to pay salary to the
candidate.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\MUR 5787, First Gen. Counsel's Rpt. at 7-8.
\131\Id. at 2, 8.
\132\Id. at 2.
\133\MUR 5787, Notification with Factual and Legal Analysis (Aug.
9, 2006). The Respondents informed the FEC that they would ``submit the
requested information and [were] interested in discussing pre-probable
cause conciliation.'' MUR 5787, Response from Kalyn Free for Congress
(Aug. 22, 2006). Subsequent filings in the matter do not disclose the
nature of the information that the Respondents submitted to the FEC.
Instead, on July 3, 2008, the FEC issued a Third General Counsel's
Report. See generally MUR 5787, Gen. Counsel's Rpt. #3. Notably, this
Report cites to a Second General Counsel's Report. Id. at 2. However,
because the Third General Counsel's Report has been heavily redacted,
and the Second General Counsel's Report is not publicly available, it
is unclear if the FEC provided any additional analysis about the
deferred compensation payment issue based on new information submitted
by the Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately two years later, the matter was resolved
through a Conciliation Agreement. In the Conciliation
Agreement, the FEC noted the campaign committee's assertion
that there was an oral agreement to pay salary,\134\ and
without further discussion of the impact of that oral
agreement, found a personal use violation only with respect to
the ``overpayment of salary'' to the candidate, which the
candidate had already reimbursed.\135\ The Conciliation
Agreement directed the candidate to return certain
reimbursements that the campaign committee did not adequately
document but notably did not direct a refund of the salary
payments that were under the maximum threshold.\136\ Although,
the FEC's adoption of the Factual and Legal Analysis indicates
that the existence of an oral agreement to make the payments to
the candidate before the primary election date was part of the
FEC's investigation, it is not clear from publicly available
records whether the FEC obtained additional information
regarding that agreement during the investigation, nor is it
clear how the existence of the oral agreement impacted the
FEC's ultimate resolution of the matter. The absence of a
direction to refund the entirety of the salary payments,
however, indicates that the FEC may find a deferred
compensation or back pay agreement created before a candidate
ceases to be a candidate to be consistent with the personal use
regulations' timing restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\See MUR 5787, Conciliation Agreement at 4, 7.
\135\MUR 5787, Conciliation Agreement at 7; see also MUR 5787, Gen.
Counsel's Rpt. #3, at 1 (stating that the FEC previously found reason
to believe that the candidate violated the personal use restriction in
connection with her receipt of the salary overpayment, but not
mentioning the post-election timing of the salary overpayment).
\136\ MUR 5787, Conciliation Agreement at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the foregoing, the Committee has determined that
Representative Tlaib's receipt of a portion of the post-general
election payments violated FECA's personal use restrictions
because: (1) it represented a salary payment that covered a
time period after she ceased being a candidate; and (2) it
represented a deferred compensation payment that covered a time
period after she ceased being a candidate.
1. November 16, 2018 Payment
Similar to MUR 7068, a portion of Representative Tlaib's
November 16 salary payment covered a period after she ceased
being a candidate. Campaign Staffer E testified that this
payment represented the amount owed to her ``only up to the
point of the election day,'' and suggested it was only equal to
her normal bimonthly payment because she received a larger rate
for election day that brought her salary to the exact same
sum.\137\ However, his testimony is inconsistent with
contemporaneous campaign records that demonstrate that the
payment covered the full two-week period before and after the
election--November 1 to November 15.\138\ Notably, however, in
the chart that Campaign Staffer E created after the general
election, and after press reports raised allegations about the
payments, he included a shorter pay period for the November 16
payment--November 1 to November 6.\139\ This ad hoc
modification is not enough to rebut other, more reliable
evidence in the record about the nature of this payment,
including the memo line of the check itself, which indicates
the payment was for the entirety of the November 1 to November
15 pay period. Thus, consistent with the analysis from MUR
7068, Representative Tlaib is entitled to retain $800 from the
November 16 payment that covers the time period when she was
still a candidate--November 1 through November 6.\140\ The
remaining $1,200 covered the time period when she was no longer
a candidate--November 7 through November 15--therefore it must
be returned to the Campaign.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E. See also Appendix B at
6 (stating that the November 16 payment covered the period through
election day).
\138\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 9; OCE's Referral, Exhibit 10.
\139\See Exhibit 6.
\140\To determine the amount that Representative Tlaib was entitled
to retain, the Committee used the same calculation the FEC used in the
conciliation agreement for MUR 7068, i.e., the amount of the payment
($2,000) divided by the number of days the payment covered (15) equals
the amount that Representative Tlaib received per day for this payment
($133.33). See MUR 7068, Conciliation Agreement at 3-4. Therefore, if
Representative Tlaib was entitled to receive a salary for a 6-day
period, she can retain $800 from the November 16 payment ($133.33
6).
\141\See id. ($2,000-$800 = $1,200).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. December 1, 2018 Payment
Representative Tlaib and her former senior campaign staff
have characterized the December 1, 2018, payment of $15,500 as
``deferred compensation'' or ``back pay'' and have maintained
that it represents compensation for work she performed during
the campaign, but chose to defer until after the election to
ensure that the Campaign had enough resources.\142\ As noted
above, the FEC has indicated that salary payments received
after an election may be permissible if they represent
compensation for a period during the election cycle; however,
as demonstrated in the FEC's analysis of a similar arrangement,
the timing of the decision should be considered--specifically,
whether there was an agreement to make the salary payments
while Representative Tlaib was still a candidate.\143\ The FEC
has explicitly rejected the argument that salary payments made
to a candidate after a general election are permissible so long
as the total amount of salary paid falls under the maximum
eligible amount.\144\ To find otherwise would also be contrary
to the spirit of the regulations; in permitting candidates to
receive a salary, the FEC noted that its decision was informed
by the fact that the salaries would be ``fully disclosed to the
public,'' and therefore, ``those who contribute to the campaign
and who support the candidate will be able to voice their
approval, or disapproval, of this use of campaign funds.''\145\
If candidates were able to delay payment of salary until after
an election, without having entered into an agreement to do so
and thereby creating a reportable obligation, then the
assurance of transparency underlying the FEC's rulemaking would
be undermined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A (stating that
the Campaign was ``paying [Representative Tlaib] less than what she was
entitled to'' during the campaign so ``the payments in November and
December were intended to catch up some of what [Representative Tlaib]
had been owed to the extent [the Campaign] had funds available to pay
it''); 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D (explaining that
Representative Tlaib was ``entitled to pay herself significantly more
over the course of the campaign,'' but ``rather than paying herself the
full amount that she could and should [have received], she was only
receiving . . . smaller checks to try to limit how much was coming out
of the campaign so that she could use those resources for other
things''); 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer C.
\143\See MUR 5787, First Gen. Counsel's Rpt. at 7-8.
\144\See MUR 7068, First Gen. Counsel's Rpt. at 6-7.
\145\Disclaimers, Fraudulent Solicitation, Civil Penalties, and
Personal Use of Campaign Funds, 67 Fed. Reg. 76962, 76972 73 (Dec. 13,
2002) (to be codified at 11 C.F.R. 113).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been conflicting testimony regarding the timing
of the decision for Representative Tlaib's deferred
compensation. Some former senior staffers, such as Campaign
Staffer E and Campaign Staffer A, testified that they learned
about the decision around the general election; possibly after
the election.\146\ Others, such as Campaign Staffer D and
Representative Tlaib, indicated that they recall discussions
about the additional compensation around the time of the
primary election.\147\ Representative Tlaib testified that she
started asking about ``back pay'' after the primary election
because she was unable to return to work as she had previously
planned.\148\ Her interest in receiving additional compensation
at that time is consistent with Campaign Staffer C's post-
primary budget proposal to increase her monthly salary.\149\
Representative Tlaib also confirmed that she had concerns about
the Campaign's ability to continue to pay her salary after the
primary election, which supports Campaign Staffer D's testimony
that she requested that any additional compensation be deferred
until after the election to ensure that the Campaign had
sufficient resources.\150\ The Committee credits Representative
Tlaib's testimony that she made an informal agreement with the
Campaign to receive ``back pay'' while she was still a
candidate after the primary election.\151\ Nonetheless, she is
not entitled to retain the full $15,500 payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer A (stating that
he does not know when the Campaign made the decision to pay
Representative Tlaib for work she performed prior to the election, but
that he believes the decision was made after the election); 18(a)
Interview of Campaign Staffer E (indicating that he learned about the
nature of the December 1 payment from Campaign Staffer A in November).
\147\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D (indicating that there
were ongoing discussions about deferring Representative Tlaib's salary
payments and that these discussions took place around the primary
election); 18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib (testifying
that she remembers having discussions regarding ``back pay'' after the
primary election and before the general election).
\148\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib.
\149\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer C (stating that she
proposed increasing Representative Tlaib's post-primary salary because
she was having trouble making ends meet).
\150\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D.
\151\Cf. MUR 5787, First Gen. Counsel's Rpt. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former senior campaign staffers testified that they could
not recall the basis or the origin of the $15,500 payment.\152\
According to Campaign Staffer E's November 2018 spreadsheet,
the payment represented three different amounts that have three
different purposes--a $2,000 salary payment for the ``amount
owed through'' November 30, 2018, a $6,000 ``advance'' as the
``[a]mount owed for the month of December'' 2018, and a $7,500
``[a]djustment to be made for the previous payments'' to
Representative Tlaib.\153\ As a result, based on the
spreadsheet, $8,000 of the December 1 payment represented
salary payments to Representative Tlaib during a time period in
which she was no longer a candidate. With regard to the $7,500
``adjustment'' amount, the notes in the spreadsheet indicate
that this amount is based on the calculation of $2,000 per
month for 3.75 months.\154\ Several former senior campaign
staff and Representative Tlaib also testified that they do not
know the basis for the adjustment amount, or the calculation,
but it appears to represent ``back pay'' or ``deferred
compensation'' for Representative Tlaib starting after the
August primary election through the November general
election.\155\ This calculation also seems consistent with
Representative Tlaib's testimony indicating that she recalls
having discussions that the back pay amount would be ``an
additional . . . thousand or so every paycheck'' as well as
Campaign Staffer C's post-primary budget proposal increasing
Representative Tlaib's monthly salary by $2,000.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E; 18(a)
Interview of Campaign Staffer C.
\153\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 12.
\154\See id.
\155\See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D (stating that he
does not know where the $7,500 adjustment amount came from; he does
know where the ``$2,000 per month for 3.75 months'' calculation came
from; and that he did not discuss the basis for the calculation with
Campaign Staffer E); 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer C (testifying
that the $7,500 amount does not have any particular meaning to her and
does not sound familiar; that she does not know where the $7,500 amount
came from; and that she does not know where the ``$2,000 per month for
3.75 months'' calculation came from); 18(a) Interview of Representative
Rashida Tlaib (stating that she has never seen the spreadsheet before,
does not know when it was created, and does not know who provided input
for the spreadsheet); see id. (indicating that she did not have
discussions with anyone about the $7,500 amount, but she believes that
the 3.75 month period represents ``the additional money for the work
[she] did throughout the months'' and that the time period is ``[a]fter
[the] primary . . . up until the November election''); cf. 18(a)
Interview of Campaign Staffer E (testifying that the calculation of
$2,000 per month for 3.75 months ``adds up to that 7,500 adjustment''
and speculating that the 3.75 month period represents the time between
the primary election and the general election, but then stating that he
does not know where the adjustment amount came from); see id. (stating
that it is ``possible'' that Campaign Staffer D provided the equation
for the adjustment amount--$2,000 per month for 3.75--but that he does
not recall the details).
\156\18(a) Interview of Representative Rashida Tlaib; see also
18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, however, the November 2018 spreadsheet reflects a
different plan than the one Campaign Staffer E created in
Spring 2019, in which the entirety of the $15,500 December 1
payment has been spread out as additional $1,000, $1,300, or
$1,500 ``Salary Deferred'' payments in the pay periods before
and after the primary election.\157\ The Committee credits the
November 2018 chart over the later chart for three
reasons.\158\ First, the Spring 2019 document was created after
the December 1 payment was made, and after press reports raised
allegations about the nature of the post-general election
payments. Second, some of the information in the chart is
inconsistent with contemporaneous campaign records and appears
to be ad hoc modifications to address criticisms regarding the
payments; this includes, for example, the shortened pay period
for the November 16 payment.\159\ Third, despite creating the
chart, Campaign Staffer E could not adequately explain the
basis or the source for the ``Salary Deferred'' amounts.\160\
In contrast, Campaign Staffer E's November 2018 spreadsheet
appears to be a contemporaneous accounting of the Campaign's
remaining funds after the general election and proposed salary
and bonus payments for its staffers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\See OCE's Referral, Exhibit 12; cf. Exhibit 5.
\158\The Committee also notes that OCE ``discount[ed] the
veracity'' of Exhibit 5 based on similar reasons. See OCE's Referral at
14 n. 43.
\159\Cf. OCE's Referral, Exhibit 9, 10.
\160\See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the November 2018 spreadsheet, and other campaign
records, the Committee has determined that Representative Tlaib
is entitled to retain $5,900 from the December 1 payment, but
must reimburse the Campaign $9,600 because this amount of the
payment violates the personal use restriction.
3. Total Payment Owed by Representative Tlaib to her Campaign
The chart below demonstrates the breakdown of
Representative Tlaib's pay periods, base salary, and
corresponding back pay amounts after her 2018 primary election,
as found by the Committee's review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Period
Pay Period Starts Ends Base Pay Back Pay/Deferred Salary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/8/18................................... 8/31/18 $3,000..................... $1,500
9/1/18................................... 9/15/18 $2,000..................... $1,000
9/16/18.................................. 9/30/18 $2,000..................... $1,000
10/1/18.................................. 10/15/18 $2,000..................... $1,000
10/16/18................................. 10/31/18 $2,000..................... $1,000
11/1/18.................................. 11/15/18 $2,000 (must repay $1,000 (must repay
$1,200)\161\. $600)\162\
11/16/18................................. 11/30/18 $2,000 (must repay in $1,000 (must repay in
full)\163\. full)\164\
12/1/18.................................. 12/31/18 $6,000 (must repay in ...........................
full)\165\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Committee acknowledges that the post-general
election payments were far below the amount that Representative
Tlaib was legally permitted to receive during the course of her
campaign, because a portion of the payments was inconsistent
with FECA's personal use requirements, and she received it
while she was a Member-Elect of Congress, the Committee
concludes that Representative Tlaib's acceptance of $10,800
($1,200 from the November 16 payment + $9,600 from the December
1 payment) in salary and deferred compensation after the 2018
general election was contrary to the restrictions on personal
use of campaign funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\As noted in the discussion regarding the November 16 payment,
Representative Tlaib must repay the prorated amount for November 7,
2018 to November 15, 2018, which is $1,200.
\162\Representative Tlaib must repay a prorated amount for this
``back pay/deferred salary'' payment because a portion of the payment
covers a time period in which she was no longer a candidate. The
prorated amount is $533.33 ($1,000 payment 15 days = $66.67 per day)
($66.67 9 days = $600). Representative Tlaib is entitled to
retain $400.
\163\Representative Tlaib must repay the full amount of this salary
payment because it covers a time period in which she was no longer a
candidate.
\164\Representative Tlaib must repay the full amount of this back
pay/deferred salary payment because it covers a time period in which
she was no longer a candidate.
\165\Representative Tlaib must repay the full amount of this salary
payment because it covers a time period in which she was no longer a
candidate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS
FEC regulations state that ``[i]f a political committee
does not pay an employee for services rendered to the . . .
committee in accordance with an employment contract or a formal
or informal agreement to do so, the unpaid amount . . . may be
treated as a debt owed by the political committee to the
employee.''\166\ If an employee's unpaid salary is treated as a
debt, ``the political committee shall continue to report the
debt in accordance with [applicable debt reporting
requirements] . . . or until the political committee pays the
debt.''\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\11 C.F.R. Sec. 116.6(a).
\167\Id. Sec. 116.6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consensus among former senior campaign staff who were
interviewed by the Committee is that there had not been any
discussions about reporting the deferred payments as a debt
owed by the Campaign to Representative Tlaib.\168\ Campaign
Staffer E, however, acknowledged that the payments could have
been defined as a debt, and ``in hindsight . . . it would have
been [a] good practice'' to record it as a debt in the
Campaign's FEC filings.\169\ Campaign Staffer D also
acknowledged that during the campaign, he understood that the
payments were considered ``funding that [Representative Tlaib]
was owed and entitled to, that . . . [the Campaign] would be
paying her to the extent money could be raised after the
general [election].''\170\ Thus, there was some awareness by
senior campaign staffers, during and after the election, that
the deferred compensation agreement could be considered a debt
owed by the Campaign to Representative Tlaib.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D; 18(a) Interview of
Campaign Staffer C; 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E.
\169\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E.
\170\18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, the FEC has not specifically addressed
whether a ``back pay'' or ``deferred compensation'' arrangement
is permissible under the personal use regulation. However, in
the First General Counsel's Report for MUR 5787, the General
Counsel determined that there was reason to believe that the
post-election payments violated certain reporting requirements
because the campaign committee failed to contemporaneously
report salary-related debt based on the purported oral
agreement between the campaign manager and the candidate.\171\
The Conciliation Agreement in that matter, however, did not
address the salary debt reporting issue.\172\ Therefore, it is
unclear whether such an arrangement must be contemporaneously
reported as a ``debt'' or ``obligation'' in a campaign
committee's FEC filings.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\MUR 5787, First Gen. Counsel's Rpt. at 8.
\172\MUR 5787, Conciliation Agreement at 7.
\173\Cf. FEC Advisory Opinion (AO) Quayle 2000 (AO 2004-27). This
FEC Advisory Opinion involved a treasurer's ``proposed use of campaign
funds to reimburse two former employees for unpaid salary dating back''
several years. Id. at 1. During the campaign, the employees agreed to
volunteer their services to help the campaign committee preserve funds
for the election. Id. at 2. Several years after the election, the
treasurer sought to pay these employees for their services with
remaining campaign funds. Id. The FEC concluded that the campaign
committee was prohibited from using campaign funds to pay the two
employees because, among other reasons, it failed to timely report the
unpaid salaries as an outstanding debt or obligation. Id. at 3. As a
result, because the payments did not apply to one of the other
permitted uses of contributions, the payments were impermissible. Id.
at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the lack of a definitive requirement to report a
``back pay'' or ``deferred compensation'' arrangement to the
FEC, the Committee agrees with Representative Tlaib's treasurer
that reporting such an arrangement during Representative
Tlaib's campaign would have been a ``good practice.''\174\ One
of the main purposes of the FEC's reporting requirements is to
facilitate transparency in campaign spending. As discussed
previously, when explaining its decision to approve the
candidate salary exception to the personal use restrictions,
the FEC stated that ``it is satisfied that, because all
candidate . . . salaries will be fully disclosed to the public,
those who contribute to the campaign and who support the
candidate will be able to voice their approval, or disapproval
of this use of campaign funds.''\175\ Thus, disclosure of any
agreement for a candidate to receive ``back pay'' or ``deferred
compensation'' at the end of an election should also be fully
disclosed during a campaign for the same reason. There is some
evidence in the record indicating that the senior campaign
staff's heightened awareness about the political risks
associated with Representative Tlaib's salary payments may have
influenced the decision to defer additional compensation, and
thereby, the disclosure of the additional compensation until
after the general election.\176\ Such political risks, however,
are inherent in the process and categorizing salary as ``back
pay'' cannot be used as an end run around the transparency
required by campaign finance laws and regulations. The
Committee urges Representative Tlaib to take care to ensure
that her Campaign's activities are consistent with that goal of
transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\See 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer E (indicating that it
would have been a ``good practice'' to report the deferred payments as
debts during the campaign).
\175\Disclaimers, Fraudulent Solicitation, Civil Penalties, and
Personal Use of Campaign Funds; 67 Fed. Reg. 76962, 76972-73 (Dec. 13,
2002) (to be codified at 11 C.F.R. pt. 113).
\176\See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of Campaign Staffer D (indicating
that Representative Tlaib may have decided not to increase her salary
during the campaign because of past criticism from her political
opponents); id. (indicating that senior campaign staff had discussions
about delaying Representative Tlaib's salary payments after the primary
election to avoid political fallout); see also 18(a) Interview of
Campaign Staffer A (testifying that he advised Representative Tlaib
that she would likely receive political attacks again if she continued
receiving a salary after the primary, but noting that the payments did
not have to be publicly disclosed until the Campaign filed its October
2018 Quarterly Report with the FEC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. CONCLUSION
A congressional candidacy can be an incredibly expensive
endeavor that only a few individuals have been able to
successfully execute. The FEC has attempted to ease some of the
financial burdens associated with this endeavor for those
candidates who may not have the resources to forego a salary to
participate in a campaign, by allowing them to receive a salary
from campaign funds. Representative Tlaib's 2018 candidacy fit
within this category--she did not have the resources to
relinquish her salary from her full-time employment without
also receiving financial assistance from her Campaign. The
Committee recognizes Representative Tlaib's good faith efforts
to comply with FECA's candidate salary requirements, which
included seeking legal guidance before receiving campaign
funds. Representative Tlaib also chose to receive a monthly
salary that was significantly lower than her legal threshold
amount. Nonetheless, her receipt of payments after the general
election--though conservative in comparison to her legal
threshold amount--was inconsistent with certain FECA
requirements.
Although the regulations on candidate salary payments are
complex, they reflect a recognition that such payments create a
heightened risk of unjust personal enrichment. The Committee
recommends that all candidates who believe they will use
campaign funds to pay themselves a salary seek early, and
ongoing, guidance from the FEC regarding the salary
requirements. Additionally, to avoid questions about the
legitimacy of certain payments, such as back pay or deferred
compensation payments after a primary or general election, the
Committee recommends that candidates contemporaneously
memorialize such arrangements to clearly reflect the intent and
terms of the agreement, and, consistent with the purpose behind
the FEC's reporting requirements, publicly disclose the
agreement in the appropriate FEC reports.
While the Committee recognizes that the campaign
environment can at times lend itself to hurried decision-
making, as a Member-Elect of Congress, Representative Tlaib had
a greater duty to ensure that any funding she received from her
Campaign after her general election was fully compliant with
statutory requirements and fully transparent with the public.
Based on its review, the Committee determined that
Representative Tlaib did not comply with the letter of the
relevant laws and regulations governing her receipt of salary
payments from her Campaign. The Committee did not find
evidence, however, that Representative Tlaib intended to
unjustly enrich herself, and recognizes that she made efforts
to ensure her compliance with the applicable requirements. In
light of this, the Committee determined that no sanction was
merited, provided Representative Tlaib returns the funds that
she improperly received to her Campaign in full within a year
of the date of this Report, with the understanding that she can
make smaller payments over the course of the year.
The Committee unanimously voted to adopt this Report and
take no further action. Upon publication of this Report and the
Committee's receipt of a notification from Representative Tlaib
of her satisfactory completion of the above steps, the
Committee will consider this matter closed.
VII. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c)
The Committee made no special oversight findings in this
Report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is
authorized by any measure in this Report.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]