A congressional watchdog is seeking to further investigate campaign finance allegations involving Representatives Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) and Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.).
The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), a nonpartisan and independent committee that examines misconduct claims against House members and staff, revealed on Thursday that Ogles might have misrepresented a loan for his 2022 campaign, having transferred a significantly smaller amount from an undisclosed source than initially reported.
In a different report published on the same day, the OCE indicated that Cherfilus-McCormick might have engaged in “impermissible payments” to a state political action committee (PAC), which subsequently compensated various vendors and her unofficial campaign manager. This individual was reportedly “heavily involved” in producing franked communications from her congressional office without receiving official payment.
Additionally, the OCE suggested that Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign could have accepted an excessive in-kind contribution without proper reporting, along with transactions involving her businesses. In response, Cherfilus-McCormick noted in her statement that the investigative subcommittee had yet to finalize its review of the allegations. She emphasized that the referral for further review does not imply that any violations occurred.
The congresswoman expressed her intent to “continue collaborating with the Committee and its Investigative Subcommittee,” although the report highlighted her lack of cooperation during the OCE’s review. A spokesperson for Ogles has been approached by The Hill for a response.
In examining Ogles’s situation regarding the alleged loan or excessive contribution, local media raised concerns after he reported a $320,000 loan to his campaign in April 2022, noting that he failed to disclose adequate income, assets, or liabilities in his personal financial disclosure. The OCE initiated its investigation in February due to a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center but claimed that Ogles was uncooperative. However, on the final day of the OCE’s investigation, Ogles’s legal counsel confirmed that only $20,000 of the stated total had been transferred to his campaign.
The counsel stated, “While Representative Ogles had identified approximately $320,000 in personal funds available for loan to the campaign, only $20,000 was actually transferred.” In a follow-up statement, Ogles explained to the media that, although “we only needed to transfer $20,000,” the entire pledged amount was mistakenly recorded on the campaign’s FEC reports.
Nevertheless, the OCE concluded—based on “limited evidence”—that Ogles may have intentionally misrepresented the total loan amount during the primary, and it could not determine whether the funds originated from his personal resources. The OCE noted, “In the absence of accurate financial disclosure reports and without cooperation from Rep. Ogles, the OCE was unable to determine whether Rep. Ogles’s alleged $20,000 loan to his campaign was made from his personal funds or came from another source representing an excessive contribution.”
Turning to the intricacies surrounding Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign financing, the OCE outlined multiple allegations regarding the flow of funds among various entities supporting her federal campaign. The committee obtained evidence that a limited liability company she owned made several payments to the state political committee Leadership in Action PAC, which allegedly disbursed funds to her informal campaign manager and various vendors on her behalf.
The OCE identified the informal campaign manager as Mark Goodrich, who reportedly performed work for her congressional office, including creating franked communications for her constituents, but was not paid through official funds. The committee faced challenges in determining Goodrich’s compensation for his work in Cherfilus-McCormick’s office, as neither party cooperated with the investigation.
Additionally, the OCE alleged that a Florida-based company, Truth & Justice Inc., made payments exceeding $150,000 to a printing and mailing vendor for Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign, surpassing the individual contribution limit of $2,900 per election in 2022. The committee also highlighted three instances where Cherfilus-McCormick might have failed to report apparent transfers between her campaigns and business accounts but was unable to verify whether additional unreported transactions had occurred due to the lack of cooperation from both the congresswoman and her campaign.
