[House Report 118-541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
House Calendar No. 81
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 118-541
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS
RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE
BILL HUIZENGA
----------
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 7, 2024.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE
BILL HUIZENGA
House Calendar No. 81
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 118-541
______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS
RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE
BILL HUIZENGA
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 7, 2024.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
-------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-006 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi, SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania,
Chairman Ranking Member
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ANDREW R. GARBARINO, New York DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota GLENN IVEY, Maryland
REPORT STAFF
Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Brittney Pescatore, Director of Investigations
Keelie Broom, Counsel to the Chairman
David Arrojo, Counsel to the Ranking Member
Melissa Chong, Counsel
Caroline Taylor, Investigator
Peyton Wilmer, Investigative Clerk
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ethics,
Washington, DC, June 7, 2024.
Hon. Kevin F. McCumber,
Acting Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. McCumber: 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 Bill Huizenga.''
Sincerely,
Michael Guest,
Chairman.
Susan Wild,
Ranking Member.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. OVERVIEW..........................................................1
II. INVESTIGATION BACKGROUND..........................................2
III.COMMITTEE FINDINGS................................................3
IV. CONCLUSION........................................................6
V. STATEMENT UNDER RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES...................................................7
APPENDIX A: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS......................................................... 8
APPENDIX B: REPRESENTATIVE HUIZENGA'S RESPONSE TO REPORT AND
FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS................. 363
House Calendar No. 81
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 118-541
======================================================================
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUIZENGA
_______
June 7, 2024.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Guest, 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. OVERVIEW
On August 16, 2019, the Office of Congressional Ethics
(OCE) forwarded to the Committee a Report and Findings (OCE's
Referral) regarding Representative Bill Huizenga. OCE reviewed
allegations that Representative Huizenga's principal campaign
committee, Huizenga for Congress, reported campaign
disbursements that may not be legitimate and verifiable
campaign expenditures attributable to bona fide campaign or
political purposes. Specifically, OCE considered whether
certain campaign-funded trips and a campaign-funded dinner
involved personal use. OCE also reviewed allegations that
Representative Huizenga's campaign accepted contributions from
individuals employed in his congressional office, and that
Representative Huizenga authorized expenditures from his
Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) that were not for
permissible official expenses. OCE recommended that the
Committee further review the campaign-related allegations and
recommended that the Committee dismiss the allegation regarding
the MRA.
Following its extensive review of the record in this
matter, the Committee found that Representative Huizenga and
his staff generally acted within the bounds of the law when
spending campaign and official funds. Some expenditures paid
for by Representative Huizenga's campaign, particularly during
travel to recreational destinations, fell within unclear areas
of FEC regulations. However, there was an established campaign
purpose for each of the trips reviewed and there was no clear
pattern of misspending.
The Committee did find that Representative Huizenga's
campaign did not fully comply with relevant standards with
respect to its reporting and reimbursement practices, largely
due to lack of knowledge or confusion about the applicable
requirements. However, while the Committee's review was
ongoing, several additional matters were initiated relating to
the personal use of campaign funds, including matters referred
by OCE as well as matters that the Committee opened on its own
initiative. In reviewing all such matters, it was apparent to
the Committee that the House community would benefit from
updated guidance on personal use of campaign funds and related
recordkeeping expectations.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the
lack of any clear pattern of misspending or intentional
circumvention of any standards of conduct, as well as
Representative Huizenga's consistent cooperation with this
review, the significant remedial steps that his campaign has
undertaken, and the widespread need for updated guidance on the
personal use of campaign funds, the Committee determined that
Representative Huizenga's conduct did not merit a sanction.
Accordingly, the Committee will close this matter by issuing
this report, updating its guidance on personal use of campaign
funds, and sending Representative Huizenga a private letter
detailing its findings in his matter and conveying its
expectation that he continue to employ appropriate safeguards
to ensure proper spending and reporting of both official and
campaign funds.
II. INVESTIGATION BACKGROUND
The Committee independently reviewed the allegations
referred by OCE. Representative Huizenga and his staff fully
cooperated with the Committee's review. Following OCE's
recommendation that the Committee further review the matter,
the Committee began an investigation pursuant to Committee Rule
18(a).\1\ The Committee reviewed all materials provided to it
by OCE, including the transcript of OCE's interview with
Representative Huizenga. In addition, the Committee requested
and received information from Representative Huizenga, and two
fundraising firms used by Representative Huizenga's campaign.
In total, the Committee reviewed nearly 10,000 pages of
material and interviewed five witnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pursuant to House Rule XI, cl. 3(b)(3) and Committee Rule 18(d),
the Committee voted to determine that the allegations that
Representative Huizenga may have converted campaign funds to personal
use and/or reported campaign disbursements that were not legitimate and
verifiable campaign expenditures in the 113th or 114th Congress are
directly related to the allegations concerning similar conduct
occurring during and after the 115th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCE specifically reviewed campaign expenditures during
annual fundraising events at Disney World in Orlando,
disbursements made during a biennial political conference on
Mackinac Island in Michigan, and a yearly fundraising trip to
Deer Valley Ski Resort in Park City, Utah. The Committee
reviewed evidence relating to each of those trips, as well as
other out-of-district campaign or political travel by the
congressman. OCE also reviewed additional allegations of
personal use, including those regarding the amount spent on
golf-related expenses; mileage reimbursements; and a September
2014 disbursement for a dinner Representative Huizenga attended
with his half-brother (who is also his Campaign Manager) and
their spouses. The Committee also sought and received evidence
related to those and other discrete expenditures.
The allegations against Representative Huizenga's campaign
relating to potential personal use of campaign funds were
initially raised in a complaint filed with the FEC in November
2018. The FEC was equally divided on whether to find reason to
believe a violation occurred and accordingly, the FEC matter
was closed in June 2019 (while OCE's review was ongoing).\2\
The FEC's General Counsel's office recommended the Commission
dismiss the allegations, direct the campaign to work with FEC
staff to amend its reports,\3\ and close the file. In making
its recommendations, the General Counsel's office noted that
the complaint's assertion that the campaign's spending was
significantly greater than that of comparable campaign
committees was not sufficient to ``raise to a reasonable
inference that Respondents converted campaign funds to personal
use.''\4\ Thereafter, the campaign implemented changes to
improve its reporting. Representative Huizenga noted he has
``worked with a new compliance professional and counsel to
implement new policies to prevent any even incidental future
violations,'' and that the new compliance firm works to ensure
that receipts, expenditures, and reimbursements are properly
accounted for and reported.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Matter Under Review (MUR) 7534, First Gen. Counsel's Rpt.
\3\The campaign does not appear to have made amendments to past
reports to address the reporting issues identified by the FEC.
\4\Id. at 11-12.
\5\Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. COMMITTEE FINDINGS
The Committee found that Representative Huizenga and his
staff generally acted within the bounds of the law when
spending campaign and official funds. Some expenditures paid
for by Representative Huizenga's campaign, particularly during
travel to recreational destinations, fell within unclear areas
of FEC regulations.
Each year, Representative Huizenga attends and/or hosts
several fundraisers or other political events that take place
outside of his district or in Washington, D.C., and cause him
and his family to travel to various resorts and other
recreational destinations. Several of Representative Huizenga's
congressional staffers are also involved with his campaign, and
those staffers sometimes join him on the destination
fundraising trips, bringing their families at the campaign's
expense.\6\ Representative Huizenga believed these expenses to
be legitimate uses of campaign funds because the campaign
benefited from the general attendance of the staffers and their
families over the course of the trips, as well as his own
family's participation in the fundraising weekend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\For example, the expenses associated with the Disney trips
included airfare, lodging, gas or ground transportation, food and
beverage, park tickets and express passes, unspecified ``merchandise,''
and a stroller rental.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign finance laws and regulations explicitly prohibit
the use of campaign funds for ``vacations.'' However, while the
trips involved recreational destinations and activities, the
primary purpose of each trip was clearly campaign-related. The
record supports the general notion that the presence of the
Member's family at such ``family friendly'' events was to the
benefit of the campaign. The FEC has explicitly authorized the
use of campaign funds to pay for the travel expenses of a
candidate's spouse and children.\7\ While OCE raised concerns
about whether the participation of the families of the Member's
staff was also permissible, the Committee found the
considerations used in examining the Member's family's
participation also generally applied to his staff's families'
participation, and there is no clear prohibition on using
campaign funds to pay for travel by staffers' family members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\FEC Advisory Opinion (AO) Roemer (AO 1995-20) (approving payment
of wife's travel expenses as ``clearly attributable to her
participation in your campaign for re-election,'' and children's travel
expenses to the district as necessary due to the children's ages
(noting ``[t[his is not the same as family travel to vacation
locales'').); FEC AO Thornberry (AO 1996-34) (noting that the campaign
represented that the candidate's wife and children would ``play a
significant role in the political receptions and fundraising events
that are part of the trip.''); FEC AO Dodd (AO 2005-09) (campaign ``may
use campaign funds to defray the costs of travel by Senator Dodd's
minor children to accompany their parents between their home in
Connecticut and Washington, D.C., provided that the parents are
traveling to participate in a function directly connected to the
Senator's bona fide official responsibilities.''); MUR 7100, First Gen.
Counsel's Rpt. at 14 (``The Commission has previously determined that
campaign funds may be used to pay for a candidate's immediate family
members to travel to participate in campaign events.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his submission to the Committee, Representative Huizenga
argued: ``[B]ecause I have determined, under the broad
discretion provided to me under federal law, that attendance by
my family and my staffs'' families serves a bona fide campaign
purpose, the use of campaign funds for these events was
permissible. This should be sufficient to end the inquiry into
this allegations.''\8\ The Committee has indeed long recognized
that Members have ``wide discretion to determine whether any
particular expenditure would serve'' a bona fide campaign
purpose.\9\ That is not, however, the end of the inquiry, as
the Committee has also made clear that Members have no
discretion to convert campaign funds to personal use, and ``[a]
bona fide campaign purpose is not established merely because
the use of campaign money might result in a campaign benefit as
an incident to benefits personally realized by the recipient of
such funds.''\10\ In other words, it is not enough that a
Member can articulate a campaign benefit for an expense; what
matters is the animating purpose of the disbursement. If, for
example, the Huizengas planned a family vacation to Disney
World and decided to meet with some potential donors in the
area while they were there, that would not convert the personal
trip to a campaign trip.\11\ But that is not what happened in
this case; there was a well-established campaign purpose for
each of the trips reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Appendix B.
\9\Ethics Manual at 154.
\10\Id. at 164.
\11\Cf. FEC AO Jager (AO 2002-05) (in which the FEC rejected the
argument that, if travel to a destination is campaign-related,
``campaign funds could be used to pay for all expenses of the trip,
including the sight-seeing'' and other ``portions,'' noting such a
result ``would be inconsistent with or even contrary to the
Commission's personal use regulations.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign fundraisers and political events are a routine and
sometimes necessary aspect of serving as a Member of Congress.
Members also carry a duty to ensure their campaign committees
comply with appropriate laws and regulations in connection with
such events and the funds that they raise. The Committee has
long advised that Members ``must exercise great care'' with
respect to campaign travel expenditures (as well as
expenditures for meals, or goods or services provided by the
Member's family), as ``such outlays by their nature raise a
concern of personal use.''\12\ It is especially prudent to
maintain more detailed records of recreational campaign
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Id. at 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Committee's record did not reveal any pattern of
clear personal use, the Committee notes that Representative
Huizenga should have exercised more care to avoid even the
appearance of improper use of campaign funds. As a Member of
the House, Representative Huizenga has a duty above and beyond
the technical requirements of campaign finance laws and
regulations, and the Committee has advised him to exercise more
circumspection in the future.
The Committee also found that the campaign did not fully
comply with relevant standards with respect to its reporting
and reimbursement practices, largely due to lack of knowledge
or confusion about the applicable requirements. Representative
Huizenga has acknowledged some recordkeeping gaps. While he
made a substantial production of receipts, financial records,
and other documents relating to the expenditures under review,
there were instances in which the Committee could not confirm
the campaign-related purpose of an expenditure based on the
documentation available. The campaign's inadequate
recordkeeping practices led to a violation of clause 6 of the
House Code of Official Conduct.
Members have broad discretion to determine the bona fide
needs of their campaign, which can sometimes result in a
campaign operating within unclear areas of what may or may not
be permissible under the various laws and regulations. The
Committee has long recognized that certain areas of spending,
including spending that involves travel, meals, and/or family
members, can by their nature raise concerns of abuse. Frequent
and substantial spending in these areas, coupled with
maintaining poor records and reporting practices, will invite
increased scrutiny into a campaign's finances and create the
appearance that a Member is living a lavish lifestyle by virtue
of his position.
For Representative Huizenga, such appearance issues led to
an FEC complaint, OCE review, and ultimately, an investigation
by this Committee. Representative Huizenga took full advantage
of the discretion afforded to him, even in instances where it
appeared that the campaign spent more to attend fundraisers
than it raised. By maintaining consistent records verifying the
campaign purpose of such spending, a Member in Representative
Huizenga's position would be able to more readily respond to
questions raised about their spending and exercise more
restraint in whether to permit certain campaign expenses.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\The campaign also improperly accepted ``contributions'' from
congressional staffers in the form of outlays made by those staffers,
which the campaign properly reimbursed; Representative Huizenga and his
staff were not aware at the time that such outlays, even when
reimbursed, are impermissible contributions. Representative Huizenga's
campaign has since instituted significant remedial efforts and now
appears to be operating in compliance with applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Committee's review was ongoing, several
additional matters were initiated relating to the personal use
of campaign funds, including matters referred by OCE as well as
matters that the Committee opened on its own initiative. In
reviewing all such matters, it was apparent to the Committee
that the House community would benefit from updated guidance on
personal use of campaign funds and related recordkeeping
expectations. With respect to whether the use of campaign funds
is considered impermissibly ``personal,'' existing law and
guidance from the FEC is often ambiguous and provides for
significant gray areas of spending. While House Rules impose
additional requirements and expectations with respect to
campaign spending and personal use, the Committee has found
that those standards are not widely known or understood.
Accordingly, the Committee will refresh its guidance to the
House community on these issues based on lessons learned from
this and other matters.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Committee recognizes Representative Huizenga's
cooperation with its extensive review, which covered a span of
years and involved the collection of vast amounts of
information. The Committee also acknowledges his efforts to
correct the campaign's practices, both prior to and following
the Committee's involvement. Based on its review, the Committee
determined that Representative Huizenga's campaign had
inadequate recordkeeping practices that led to a violation of
clause 6 of the Code of Official Conduct. The Committee did not
find that Representative Huizenga engaged in clear personal use
of campaign funds. The Committee does, however, advise that
Members exercise care to avoid even the appearance of improper
spending.
In a recent matter involving Representative George Santos,
the Committee noted that the Member's failure ``to take
reasonable steps to prevent or correct'' reporting errors,
despite being made aware of concerns about the campaign's
reporting practices, resulted in ``the misreporting of
substantial sums,'' and that related ``poor recordkeeping''
meant that the Member's campaign spending could not be verified
and had ``called into question the integrity of the House,
contrary to clauses 1 and 6'' of the Code of Official
Conduct.\14\ In an older matter involving Representative Bud
Shuster, the Committee found that ``the number and dollar
amount'' of vague expenditures, ``combined with the record
keeping practices followed by'' the Member's campaign,
``created the appearance that certain expenditures may not have
been attributable to bona fide campaign or political
purposes.''\15\ Representative Huizenga has acknowledged some
recordkeeping gaps during his former bookkeeper's tenure. In
many instances, while there was documentation to confirm what
expenses were paid for by the campaign, there was no record to
demonstrate the campaign nexus. This is not a matter, however,
like that of Representative Shuster, where campaign funds were
spent ``without making even the most minimal effort to document
or verify that the expenditures were related to legitimate
campaign activity.''\16\ Nor is this a matter like that of
Representative Santos, where campaign reporting was
deliberately obscured to hide fraudulent financial activity.
The record reflects that Representative Huizenga and his staff
often sent receipts or other records of their spending to the
former bookkeeper. Clause 6 requires more effort, however, and
Representative Huizenga is ultimately responsible for ensuring
the legitimacy of his campaign spending can be verified.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative George Santos, H. Rept. 118-274, 118th Cong. 1st Sess.
(2023).
\15\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative E.G. ``Bud''
Shuster, H. Rept. 106-979, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. 64-65 (2000).
\16\Id. at 78.
\17\FEC regulations require a campaign to keep records for each
disbursement for three years, including the amount, date, name and
address of payee, and a brief but specific description of why the
disbursement was made. See Recording disbursements, FEC, https://
www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/keeping-records/records-
disbursements/; see also 11 C.F.R. Sec. 102.9(b). The FEC will consider
a campaign in compliance with the recordkeeping requirements if it can
show that ``best efforts have been made'' to obtain the required
records. 11 C.F.R. Sec. 102.9(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is apparent to the Committee that all Members would
benefit from more direct and updated guidance on how standards
related to the personal use of campaign funds apply to the
realities of their campaign. The Committee trusts, however,
that Representative Huizenga now understands that
implementation of appropriate verification measures and more
cautious spending will serve to ensure the public's trust in
the integrity of Members' campaigns--and reduce the need for
lengthy and costly investigations into campaign activities. The
Committee hopes that all who campaign for election or
reelection to the House learn from his experience.
Accordingly, the Committee unanimously voted to adopt this
Report, and take no further action.
V. STATEMENT UNDER RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
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]