The House Ethics Committee has launched a wide-ranging investigation into GOP Rep. David Schweikert and the chief of staff, Oliver Schwab, over allegations the Arizona Republican misspent official funds and received illegal campaign contributions from Schwab and also other employees, in line with an argument within the secretive panel.
The probe follows a recommendation through the Office of Congressional Ethics the independent ethics watchdog that the Ethics Committee further explore Schweikert and Schwabs activities.
Story Continued Below
Schweikert said within an interview he welcomed the investigation, calling the challenge a question of clerical mistakes and not an intentional violation of House ethics rules. Schweikert has repeatedly downplayed the problem ever since the scandal broke not too long ago.
Its wonderful, because i am asking to create a formal review and then we can teach our information since almost December, Schweikert said of the investigation. Schweikert said he plans to talk with ethics investigators soon to make a presentation in cases where.
The Ethics Committee offers established a special investigative subcommittee to conduct the Schweikert probe, good announcement from Reps. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), chairwoman and ranking person the panel. Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) supplies as chairman in the investigative subcommittee, with Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) as being the ranking member. Reps. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) could be the other two members around the special panel.
The Ethics Committee’s announcement of the Schweikert investigation also indicated the allegations against the Arizona Republican and his top staffer are far broader than any other time known.
Pursuant to your Committees action, the Investigative Subcommittee shall have jurisdiction to discover whether Representative David Schweikert and/or Richard Oliver Schwab could possibly have used or authorized expenditures from Representative Schweikerts Members Representational Allowance for impermissible purposes; Representative Schweikerts campaign committees often have received improper campaign contributions from Mr. Schwab along with other individuals working at his congressional office; Mr. Schwab often have received income well over the outer earned income limit for senior staff; and Mr. Schwab could have never file entire financial disclosure statements in violation of Your policies, law, regulations, and other standards of conduct, Brooks and Deutch said inside their statement.
An investigative subcommittee unlike OCE has the power to issue subpoenas as part of its probe. The special panel is likely to make a recommendation involved to the full Ethics Committee, which will then choose how to behave about the matter. The Ethics Committee can recommend sanctions against a user or drop the fact if the investigation finds no wrongdoing.
There isn’t a time period limit upon an Ethics Committee investigation, in case it lasts in the next Congress, the panel will have to vote to keep at it the case.
At issue for Schweikert can be hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to some Schwab-owned consulting firm violated House ethics rules. These payments could have violated the limit on outside income for senior congressional aides. For example, in 2014, Schwab’s consulting firm, Chartwell Associates, received above $109,000 in consulting fees. Schwab, having been Schweikert’s chief of staff since 2011, may be the only employee of these firm. Under House rules, the limit on outside income for any congressional staffer was only under $27,000 that year.
Schwab repaid Schweikert’s campaign much more than $50,000 recently, in line with a campaign disclosure report.
The investigation into Schweikert and Schwab began after a complaint was filed with OCE by an Arizona Democratic activist. That complaint followed reports from the Washington Examiner on Schwab’s company and its interactions with Schweikert’s official office and reelection campaign.
Despite the Ethics Committee announcement, Schweikert insists the issue is more one among inaccurate paperwork than any violation.
"This is purely clerical," Schweikert said. "We buy coffee, it’s on [Schwab’s] visa or mastercard and we all reimburse him. Then when they did the reimbursements, they marked it as income instead of reimbursements. So know we have to unwind all of those."
Schweikert added: "It’s annoying, nevertheless it’s just the way it truly does work. … I do believe everyone is likely to be content with how we’ve unwound the clerical mistakes."