 |
| Rep. Bill Huizenga |
By Brandon Hall
(Email Him At WestMIPolitics@Gmail.com)
The House Ethics Committee investigating Rep. Bill Huizenga released a scathing, bipartisan report that could mean severe legal and political problems for the 5th term Congressman.
The report says that the likelihood the Huizenga for Congress committee violated federal law and House rules on two charges is substantial, and significant more inquiry is warranted. They recommended no further investigation on a third charge.
Huizenga is accused of using his Congressional campaign account to pay for lavish vacations for his family (as well as the families of his staff) at locations including Disney multiple times, ski trips, beer tours, Mackinac Island, and other hot spots. (The ritzy Disney vacations with lobbyists, and others, like Universal Studios, were first reported by West Michigan Politics in 2014. I still want to go to the Harry Potter breakfast!)
Huizenga is also accused of accepting hundreds of illegal contributions from his staff, subsequently reimbursing them. Huizenga is unable to account for nearly $40,000 in payments to Chief of Staff Jon Dewitt in any way whatsoever.
The Ethics Committee declined to further investigate whether Huizenga improperly used his official House expense account, voting 5-0 they did not believe that occurred. The other charges were affirmed 4-0, with an abstention.
As part of the investigation, depositions took place. Huizenga himself was deposed, as well as key figures like District Director (and campaign manager) Matt Kooiman, Campaign Chair Jim Barry, and Chief of Staff (and campaign adviser) Jon DeWitt.
Highlights of the depositions are at the end of the article, mainly, Rep. Huizenga claiming he was somehow unable to procure an official campaign credit card, so he had to put it in his name. Who would ever believe that?!
Miraculously, his campaign manager somehow produces a card...
According to a press release from House Ethics Committee Chairman Ted Deutch, a Florida Democrat, and Ranking Member Kenny Marchant, a Texas Republican:
Huizenga is accused of using his Congressional campaign account to pay for lavish vacations for his family (as well as the families of his staff) at locations including Disney multiple times, ski trips, beer tours, Mackinac Island, and other hot spots. (The ritzy Disney vacations with lobbyists, and others, like Universal Studios, were first reported by West Michigan Politics in 2014. I still want to go to the Harry Potter breakfast!)
Huizenga is also accused of accepting hundreds of illegal contributions from his staff, subsequently reimbursing them. Huizenga is unable to account for nearly $40,000 in payments to Chief of Staff Jon Dewitt in any way whatsoever.
The Ethics Committee declined to further investigate whether Huizenga improperly used his official House expense account, voting 5-0 they did not believe that occurred. The other charges were affirmed 4-0, with an abstention.
As part of the investigation, depositions took place. Huizenga himself was deposed, as well as key figures like District Director (and campaign manager) Matt Kooiman, Campaign Chair Jim Barry, and Chief of Staff (and campaign adviser) Jon DeWitt.
Highlights of the depositions are at the end of the article, mainly, Rep. Huizenga claiming he was somehow unable to procure an official campaign credit card, so he had to put it in his name. Who would ever believe that?!
Miraculously, his campaign manager somehow produces a card...
According to a press release from House Ethics Committee Chairman Ted Deutch, a Florida Democrat, and Ranking Member Kenny Marchant, a Texas Republican:
"On August 16, 2019, the Committee received a referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics regarding Representative Bill Huizenga.
Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Committee Rules 17A(b)(1)(A) and 17A(c)(1), the Chairman and Ranking Member jointly decided on September 30, 2019, to extend the Committee’s review of the matter. In order to gather additional information necessary to complete its review, the Committee will review the matter pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a)..."
The committee's work will remain private until completion, likely not until sometime in 2020.
"In order to comply with Committee Rule 7 regarding confidentiality, out of fairness to all respondents, and to assure the integrity of its work, the Committee will refrain from making further public statements on this matter pending completion of its initial review," the press release concludes.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Here is what's happening:
Charge 1
The Ethics Committee report says Huizenga likely violated House rules and federal law regarding accepting contributions from staffers and reimbursing them.
Hundreds of Huizenga contributions and subsequent reimbursements appear to have been illegal, as well as against House rules.
Let's allow the report to tell the tale:
The Ethics Committee report says Huizenga likely violated House rules and federal law regarding accepting contributions from staffers and reimbursing them.
Hundreds of Huizenga contributions and subsequent reimbursements appear to have been illegal, as well as against House rules.
Let's allow the report to tell the tale:
"In this review the OCE examined twenty-three disbursements comprising hundreds of
individual staff outlays that may have been impermissible contributions," the report says.
The report notes that violates federal law.
"Under 18 U.S.C. § 602, “[i]t shall be unlawful for . . . an individual elected to or serving in the office of Senator or Representative . . . to knowingly solicit any contribution within the meaning of section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 from any other such officer, employee, or person.
"Under 18 U.S.C. § 602, “[i]t shall be unlawful for . . . an individual elected to or serving in the office of Senator or Representative . . . to knowingly solicit any contribution within the meaning of section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 from any other such officer, employee, or person.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 603(a), “[i]t shall be unlawful for an officer or employee of the United States
or any department or agency thereof, or a person receiving any salary or compensation for
services from money derived from the Treasury of the United States, to make any contribution
within the meaning of section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to any Senator or Representative in the Congress, if the person receiving such contribution is the
employer or employing authority of the person making the contribution."
According to the House Ethics Manual:
“The prohibition against an employee making [a]
contribution to the individual’s employing Member is absolute. A House employee may not make
such a contribution even if the contribution was entirely unsolicited and the employee genuinely
wishes to make the contribution.”
The report continues:
The report continues:
"Generally, all the individuals interviewed stated that the campaign had no written or
generally known policies or procedures related to how funds are spent or reimbursed. As
the Chief of Staff put it, “[w]e don’t have a written policy. I mean basically everybody’s on
the honor system. . . . If you made an expense, you’d get reimbursed.”
Additionally, while it was common practice to provide receipts when requesting a
reimbursement, staffers either failed to do so with some frequency or those receipts were not
maintained and thus could not be produced when the OCE asked Rep. Huizenga and his staff
to verify certain reimbursements.
Because the Campaign Committee could not provide documentary proof of many of the largest expense reimbursements, the OCE often had limited information with which to determine whether a given reimbursement was permissible.
This was a particular problem with regard to campaign reimbursements to Rep. Huizenga’s Chief of Staff, for whom there were at least $33,274.33 of reimbursements since November of 2015 with no supporting documentation.
Because the Campaign Committee could not provide documentary proof of many of the largest expense reimbursements, the OCE often had limited information with which to determine whether a given reimbursement was permissible.
This was a particular problem with regard to campaign reimbursements to Rep. Huizenga’s Chief of Staff, for whom there were at least $33,274.33 of reimbursements since November of 2015 with no supporting documentation.
Further, Rep. Huizenga and his staff generally were unaware that congressional staff
members may not make personal outlays for the campaign. For example, when OCE staff
asked the Chief of Staff how often he made expenditures on behalf of the campaign, he stated
that he did so “fairly regularly.”
When asked about whether there were policies in place preventing his congressional staffers from making personal outlays on behalf of his campaign, Rep. Huizenga appeared not to be aware that his congressional staffers would be prohibited from doing so, and instead stated that he simply preferred that the Campaign Committee pay directly.
When asked about whether there were policies in place preventing his congressional staffers from making personal outlays on behalf of his campaign, Rep. Huizenga appeared not to be aware that his congressional staffers would be prohibited from doing so, and instead stated that he simply preferred that the Campaign Committee pay directly.
Rep. Huizenga was also asked about a number of the large reimbursements to his Chief of
Staff and surmised that most of those reimbursements would be for travel or meals while
traveling, which would fall within the exception to the ban on congressional staffer
outlays.
However, the eleven identified expenditures were reported to the FEC with disbursement category code descriptions of either 001 or 007, neither of which are for travel expenses. Category 001 is for “Administrative/salary/overhead expenses” and Category 007 is for “Campaign event expenses.”
From the little detail that was provided, the OCE can determine that in November and December, the Chief of Staff made personal outlays for $1,078.69 of unspecified “entertainment” expenses.
Because no receipts or limited other documentation were maintained and because the Campaign Committee’s FEC reporting does not contain the requisite detail, the OCE cannot determine conclusively whether all of the Chief of Staff’s $41,419.22 of expenditures filed under Categories 001 and 007 were in fact impermissible outlays, or whether some were travel and subsistence related expenses that were permissible. However, based on the evidence available to the OCE, some portion of these expenditures appears to be impermissible.
Based on the foregoing information, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Huizenga’s Campaign Committee accepted contributions from individuals employed in Rep. Huizenga’s congressional office."
However, the eleven identified expenditures were reported to the FEC with disbursement category code descriptions of either 001 or 007, neither of which are for travel expenses. Category 001 is for “Administrative/salary/overhead expenses” and Category 007 is for “Campaign event expenses.”
From the little detail that was provided, the OCE can determine that in November and December, the Chief of Staff made personal outlays for $1,078.69 of unspecified “entertainment” expenses.
Because no receipts or limited other documentation were maintained and because the Campaign Committee’s FEC reporting does not contain the requisite detail, the OCE cannot determine conclusively whether all of the Chief of Staff’s $41,419.22 of expenditures filed under Categories 001 and 007 were in fact impermissible outlays, or whether some were travel and subsistence related expenses that were permissible. However, based on the evidence available to the OCE, some portion of these expenditures appears to be impermissible.
Based on the foregoing information, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Huizenga’s Campaign Committee accepted contributions from individuals employed in Rep. Huizenga’s congressional office."
_______________________________________
Charge 2
According to the report:
"After reviewing documents produced by Rep. Huizenga, the OCE reviewed several campaign-related trips Rep. Huizenga, members of his staff, and their families took from 2015 to 2018. Those trips include trips to Disney World, Mackinac Island in Michigan, and Deer Valley in Park City, Utah.
While these trips were generally described as campaign fundraisers, the high cost and the attendance of staff’s families on these trips raised concerns that campaign funds were being converted for personal use to pay for vacations for Rep. Huizenga, his staff, and their families."
That's a BIG problem...
According to the report:
"After reviewing documents produced by Rep. Huizenga, the OCE reviewed several campaign-related trips Rep. Huizenga, members of his staff, and their families took from 2015 to 2018. Those trips include trips to Disney World, Mackinac Island in Michigan, and Deer Valley in Park City, Utah.
While these trips were generally described as campaign fundraisers, the high cost and the attendance of staff’s families on these trips raised concerns that campaign funds were being converted for personal use to pay for vacations for Rep. Huizenga, his staff, and their families."
That's a BIG problem...
"The Campaign Committee reported campaign disbursements that may not be legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes. If Rep. Huizenga converted campaign funds from the Campaign Committee to personal use, or if Rep. Huizenga’s Campaign Committee expended funds that were not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes, then Rep. Huizenga may have violated House rules, standards of conduct, and federal law.
The Board recommends that the Committee further review the above allegation concerning Rep. Huizenga because there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Huizenga’s Campaign Committee reported campaign disbursements that were not legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes."
The report continues:
"While the evidence shows there was some underlying campaign purpose motivating each of the above-described trips and other expenditures, the evidence also shows that they also had a significant or primary personal-use component for some of the attendees that were nevertheless paid for with Campaign Committee funds. Though Rep. Huizenga may have had a bona fide campaign purpose for bringing his family on the above trips, based on the testimony of Rep. Huizenga and his staff, the family of Rep. Huizenga’s staff were often brought for reasons other than to benefit the campaign.
When considering whether financing travel for staff’s family members was primarily motivated by a campaign or personal purpose, there are several indicia of personal use. The D.C. Deputy told the OCE she brought her family to Disney World to be near them, as the campaign frequently pulls her away from her family. And the Chief of Staff understood the funding of his family’s trips to be a form of compensation for his work for the Campaign Committee. With respect to the Deer Valley trip, the Chief of Staff explicitly stated that attendees didn’t need to bring children to participate,and the D.C. Deputy noted that space was limited on the trip.
Nonetheless, Rep. Huizenga chose to bring his family and his Chief of Staff’s children on a financial-services focused fundraising trip, instead of bringing his financial services expert, the D.C. Deputy. Additionally, the evidence shows that some of the ten or more family members and friends brought to the Mackinac Island Conference did little or no work for the campaign while on the trip, and instead spent their time touring the island or shopping.
Taking the trips, combined with the campaign funds spent on the personal, family dinner at Osteria Rossa, there appears to be a pattern of disregard for, or lack of understanding of, the rules prohibiting the use of campaign funds for personal use.
Based on the foregoing information, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Huizenga’s Campaign Committee reported campaign disbursements that were not legitimate and verifiable."
The report continues:
"While the evidence shows there was some underlying campaign purpose motivating each of the above-described trips and other expenditures, the evidence also shows that they also had a significant or primary personal-use component for some of the attendees that were nevertheless paid for with Campaign Committee funds. Though Rep. Huizenga may have had a bona fide campaign purpose for bringing his family on the above trips, based on the testimony of Rep. Huizenga and his staff, the family of Rep. Huizenga’s staff were often brought for reasons other than to benefit the campaign.
When considering whether financing travel for staff’s family members was primarily motivated by a campaign or personal purpose, there are several indicia of personal use. The D.C. Deputy told the OCE she brought her family to Disney World to be near them, as the campaign frequently pulls her away from her family. And the Chief of Staff understood the funding of his family’s trips to be a form of compensation for his work for the Campaign Committee. With respect to the Deer Valley trip, the Chief of Staff explicitly stated that attendees didn’t need to bring children to participate,and the D.C. Deputy noted that space was limited on the trip.
Nonetheless, Rep. Huizenga chose to bring his family and his Chief of Staff’s children on a financial-services focused fundraising trip, instead of bringing his financial services expert, the D.C. Deputy. Additionally, the evidence shows that some of the ten or more family members and friends brought to the Mackinac Island Conference did little or no work for the campaign while on the trip, and instead spent their time touring the island or shopping.
Taking the trips, combined with the campaign funds spent on the personal, family dinner at Osteria Rossa, there appears to be a pattern of disregard for, or lack of understanding of, the rules prohibiting the use of campaign funds for personal use.
Based on the foregoing information, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Huizenga’s Campaign Committee reported campaign disbursements that were not legitimate and verifiable."
Federal law says:
"Pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b)(1), a “contribution or donation [to a Member of Congress] shall not be converted by any person to personal use.”
House Rule 23, clause 6 says:
“A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner— (a) shall keep the campaign funds of such individual separate from the personal funds of such individual; (b) may not convert campaign funds to personal use in excess of an amount representing reimbursement for legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures; and (c) except as provided in clause 1(b) of rule XXIV, may not expend funds from a campaign account of such individual that are not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes.”
The House Ethics Manual notes:
“Members have wide discretion in determining what constitutes a bona fide campaign or political purpose to which campaign funds and resources may be devoted, but Members have no discretion whatsoever to convert campaign funds to personal use. Furthermore, House rules require that Members be able to verify that campaign funds have not been used for personal purposes."
Of note: the committee is now subpoenaing Disney, and three other companies:
"The following individuals and entities refused to cooperate with the OCE’s review: (1) Affordable Limousine; (2) Playtime Events Management, Inc.; (3) The Walt Disney Company; and (4) Sea Island, The Cloister." Subpoenas have been issued for all four entities.
As mentioned, the depositions reveal some interesting moments.
Rep. Huizenga claims the campaign was unable to get a credit card, so he has to keep one in his name, billed directly by the campaign bank account. What?
"Pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b)(1), a “contribution or donation [to a Member of Congress] shall not be converted by any person to personal use.”
House Rule 23, clause 6 says:
“A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner— (a) shall keep the campaign funds of such individual separate from the personal funds of such individual; (b) may not convert campaign funds to personal use in excess of an amount representing reimbursement for legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures; and (c) except as provided in clause 1(b) of rule XXIV, may not expend funds from a campaign account of such individual that are not attributable to bona fide campaign or political purposes.”
The House Ethics Manual notes:
“Members have wide discretion in determining what constitutes a bona fide campaign or political purpose to which campaign funds and resources may be devoted, but Members have no discretion whatsoever to convert campaign funds to personal use. Furthermore, House rules require that Members be able to verify that campaign funds have not been used for personal purposes."
Of note: the committee is now subpoenaing Disney, and three other companies:
"The following individuals and entities refused to cooperate with the OCE’s review: (1) Affordable Limousine; (2) Playtime Events Management, Inc.; (3) The Walt Disney Company; and (4) Sea Island, The Cloister." Subpoenas have been issued for all four entities.
As mentioned, the depositions reveal some interesting moments.
Rep. Huizenga claims the campaign was unable to get a credit card, so he has to keep one in his name, billed directly by the campaign bank account. What?
However, while being interviewed, Matt Kooiman produces a campaign card:
_____________________________________________________________
This is not an isolated incident. Read more about Huizenga's past issues below:
According to reports filed with the United States House of Representatives Ethics Committee, Huizenga failed to provide adequate information on more than one occasion.
WMP previously reported that Huizenga's "Huizenga House Fund," from his time as a State Representative, had numerous problems, including over a dozen un-filed campaign finance reports from 2004-2009.
Subsequently, I filed a complaint with the Secretary of State's office.
>>>Read the complaint to the Secretary of State HERE
On February 11, 2015, Huizenga or a representative met with the Secretary of State's office and filed the information required in the 14 outstanding reports.
On March 6, 2015, the Secretary of State requested Huizenga, because of his role as treasurer of the fund, provide an official affidavit saying his lack of disclosure of $14,000 worth of contributions was really an honest "oversight."
>>>WMP: Developing: Rep. Huizenga Responds To Campaign Finance Controversies After Meeting With Secretary of State Officials
>>>Breaking: Rep. Huizenga's Super Shady State House Finance Issues Remain Unresolved 10 Years Later
On February 11, 2015, Huizenga or a representative met with the Secretary of State's office and filed the information required in the 14 outstanding reports.
On March 6, 2015, the Secretary of State requested Huizenga, because of his role as treasurer of the fund, provide an official affidavit saying his lack of disclosure of $14,000 worth of contributions was really an honest "oversight."
>>>WMP: Developing: Rep. Huizenga Responds To Campaign Finance Controversies After Meeting With Secretary of State Officials
Huizenga eventually handled the issue after my complaint.
>>>Rep. Huizenga Vacations At Disney With Bankers He Regulates As They Benefit From His #CRomnibus Vote
_________________________________________________________________
