House ethics panel tells Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to pay more for Met Gala attendance
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Ethics Committee on Friday told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to make additional payments for her attendance at the 2021 Met Fashion Gala, where she drew attention for wearing a dress adorned with the message 'tax the rich."
The ethics panel, which found the New York Democrat had underpaid for some of the services and clothing for the event, also issued reports Friday on unrelated ethics allegations against Reps. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick or Florida and Henry Cuellar of Texas.
In a 31-page report on the allegations against Ocasio-Cortez, the Ethics Committee said she had tried to comply with House rules on accepting gifts but failed by 'impermissibly accepting a gift of free admission to the 2021 Met Gala for her partner and by failing to pay full fair market value for some of the items worn to the event.'
As a guest of Vogue, Ocasio-Cortez and her partner received tickets to the gala valued at $35,000, as well as customized clothing, hair and makeup styling and a hotel room to prepare for the high-society event.
The congresswoman worked with an attorney to comply with House ethics rules and paid for most of the goods and services with personal funds, but the ethics panel found "the payments were significantly delayed and some payments fell short of fair market value.'
In a statement, Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, Mike Casca, said: 'The Congresswoman appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules and sought to act consistently with her ethical requirements as a Member of the House. She accepts the ruling and will remedy the remaining amounts, as she's done at each step in this process.'
Rep. Mike Kelly
The House Ethics Committee issued a formal reproval Friday of Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., following a yearslong investigation into an insider-trading allegation over his wife's purchase of stock in a steel company in his Butler-area congressional district.
The panel also said Kelly and his wife, Victoria Kelly, should divest of any stock in the company, Cleveland-Cliffs, before the congressman takes any further official actions related to it.
While the committee said it 'did not find evidence' that Kelly 'knowingly or intentionally caused his spouse to trade based on insider information,' its report also said it 'did not receive full cooperation from Mrs. Kelly and was therefore unable to determine whether her stock purchase was improper.'
However, the report said, 'Representative Kelly's failure to acknowledge the seriousness of the alleged misconduct' and of the investigation itself was a violation of the code of official conduct. The committee did 'not find a clear violation' of conflict of interest.
The congressman said in a statement Friday, 'My family and I look forward to putting this distraction behind us."
Kelly noted the investigation has 'unnecessarily' lasted for nearly five years, and in the time since the Cleveland Cliffs Butler Works plant faced an uncertain future.
'Throughout this process, I have fought for the 1,400 workers at the plant, I've spoken with these workers, and they appreciate the hard work we have done to fight for those jobs and for Butler,' Kelly said.
The investigation was launched after a July 2021 referral regarding allegations the congressman's wife may have purchased stock based on confidential or nonpublic information he had learned during official duties.
The Ethics Committee staff reviewed more than 25,000 pages of documents, the report said, and interviewed people including the congressman. It found Kelly had advocated for so-called Section 232 tariffs for the product the plant produced even after Mrs. Kelly held stock in Cleveland-Cliffs.
'He took several actions to specifically benefit Cleveland-Cliffs during the time his wife had a direct financial interest in the company,' it said.
Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick
The House Ethics Committee announced Friday it had unanimously voted to reauthorize an investigative subcommittee to examine allegations involving Florida Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick.
In May, the Office of Congressional Ethics referred several allegations to the House Ethics committee, including claims Cherfilus-McCormick, a Democrat, accepted campaign contributions tied to official actions and requested community project funding for a for-profit entity.
The south Florida congresswoman has previously faced scrutiny over her campaign activities and the use of her congressional office. And earlier this year, a Florida state agency sued a company owned by her family, alleging it overcharged the state by nearly $5.8 million for pandemic-related work and has refused to return the funds.
In a statement, Cherfilus-McCormick underscored that the ethics panel had not reached any final decision and that the further review does not mean she made any violations.
'I fully respect the process and remain committed to cooperating with the Committee as it works to bring this inquiry to a close,' she said.
Rep. Henry Cuellar
The House Ethics Committee also reauthorized its investigation into Rep. Henry Cuellar over whether he engaged in multiple illegal abuses of his office. The committee launched its investigation into the Texas Democrat last year after the Justice Department indicted Cuellar on numerous federal charges, including bribery, conspiracy and money laundering.
The committee said in its reauthorization that lawmakers are 'aware of the risks associated with dual investigations' and cautioned that 'the mere fact of an investigation into these allegations does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred.'
Cuellar's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
___
Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti and Matt Brown contributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
a minute ago
- Fox News
CHARLIE KIRK: Republicans must seize Gen Z moment or risk losing an entire generation
Donald Trump did better with American young people last fall than any Republican candidate in decades. He won men under 30, won men of college age, and even won the youth vote in the swing state of Michigan. American young people were widely assumed to be uniformly liberal, and expected to remain so forever and ever. But the reality was anything but. I saw this trend playing out in real time as I toured the country speaking on college campuses to crowds of three, four, and even five thousand strong. Young Americans were not happy with Joe Biden's America or Kamala Harris' vows to continue it, and they were ready to return to the president they associated with a more prosperous pre-COVID time. It was a big win. But it was also impermanent. It could be a one-off. It could easily be explained by the aftermath of COVID or the incredible political charisma of Donald Trump himself. The youth vote of 2024 wasn't so much a win as it was an opportunity: A clear demonstration that conservatives actually can compete to win the votes of American young people, rather than writing them off. The challenge for Republicans now is seizing this Gen Z opportunity. Because Gen Z won't become lifelong conservatives thanks to a good campaign or slick online memes. They'll only become lifelong supporters if we're able to deliver for them on the big issues that matter. Experts expend a lot of effort and ink explaining what Gen Z "wants." But between my campus visits and my work running Turning Point USA, I talk to as many Gen Z'ers as anyone in the country. They want basic economic success and security like the generations before them. They want a home, they want a family, they want to feel like they are building something and that they are a part of something. And right now, on that front, Gen Z has a lot of problems. Economically, things are dire. In 1984, the median American home cost about three and a half times the median income in America. Today, the median house costs almost six times the median income. Rent isn't much better, and has risen more than 50% in real terms since the 1970s. In 1980, tuition at the average public college was about $2,800 in today's dollars. Today it's around $10,000, and, unsurprisingly, that means the average college student leaves school with a debt burden that previously could have bought them a car, provided the down payment on a house, or helped them start a family. Financially, young people aren't just facing more expensive necessities, but also a more predatory economic reality. Millions of Gen Zers are buying everything from concert tickets to groceries to Chipotle burritos through buy now, pay later (BNPL) setups from companies like Klarna and Affirm. Some polls indicate Gen Z prefers BNPL to traditional credit cards. Taking on debt for purchases may make sense when buying a house or a car, but once a person is paying for their groceries with 4 monthly payments at 10% interest, something has gone awry. Of course, America hasn't become a poor nation. In fact, we're as spectacularly wealthy as ever. Yet this wealth doesn't reach young Americans (unless it's by way of inheritance). Instead, over and over, policy decisions have ensured that elderly Americans grow wealthier and wealthier. Never in American history has so much wealth been concentrated in those who are already retired from the labor force. This reality became even more pronounced during COVID and the rampant inflation that followed. Older Americans with equities and assets in their portfolio saw their net worth skyrocket, while younger Americans just saw those assets become even more unaffordable. It wasn't always like this. When the baby boomers of today were growing up, government policy routinely favored young people. Jobs were easier to get, with far fewer credentialing hurdles. Houses were built far faster. Wages were higher instead of being suppressed through sky-high legal and illegal immigration. Today, though, America is a country built for those who are already owners, and those too young to buy are finding themselves stuck becoming borrowers and renters. The median age of first-time home buyers is now pushing 40, about a decade higher than the 1980s when the average age was just 29! This isn't because Gen Z is lazy — a common retort I hear — it's because they are contending with structural disadvantages older Americans didn't experience. If this continues, something will break, and young people will lead the way in breaking it. Zohran Mamdani has become a celebrity for Gen Z with his slick promises of a New York City rent freeze, state-owned grocery stores, and free daycare as stepping stones to eventually seizing the means of production. Mamdani's political surge is not a passing fad or pure TV news fodder. It should be a giant flashing red alarm. There are millions of Americans who feel cut off from any meaningful economic progress or stability. Eventually, if they can't obtain prosperity the old-fashioned way, they will simply try to vote themselves prosperity, and there will be plenty of demagogues promising this can be done easily by simply expropriating those with more than them. Most of Gen Z is ideologically fluid. They're happy to give Republicans a shot, then turn around and elect a Marxist two years later. America will have a reordering of its economy. The only question is what that reordering will look like. There are two paths before us. We will either have stabilizing reforms like those of Theodore Roosevelt a century ago and those espoused by nationalist, populist conservatives, or we will have revolutionary, destructive "reforms" like those that have already ruined once-prosperous countries like Cuba or Venezuela. If we succeed in the next three years, or if we fail, will determine which.
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
After 599 Take Buyouts, Duke University To Begin Layoffs In August
Staff layoffs are slated to begin at Duke University in August. Almost 600 staff members — 599 to be exact — have accepted Duke University's offer of a 'voluntary separation incentive,' but that won't be enough to accomplish the total cost savings the university's administration believes are still necessary. Instead, Duke will need to turn to involuntary layoffs to help cope with a series of financial threats, including a reduction in federal research support, an increase in the tax rate on Duke's endowment earnings, changes in health care reimbursements, and a possible decline in international student enrollment. Although Duke has not been specifically targeted by the Trump administration for massive funding reductions — like other private universities such as Harvard, Columbia, Northwestern, Cornell and Brown — its administrators have projected that federal funding cuts and other policy changes could cause it to lose anywhere from $500 million to $750 million in support, according to The Assembly, a North Carolina press outlet. In their 'Dear Duke Community' message sent on Friday, Executive Vice President Daniel Ennis, Provost Alec Gallimore and Executive Vice President for Health Affairs Mary Klotman, wrote that the layoffs would begin next month. 'This news weighs heavily on all of us at Duke,' wrote the officials. 'Between August 5th and 19th, impacted employees will be contacted individually by their managers and will work closely with Human Resources through this transition. We recognize and are sorry for the impact these changes will have on our colleagues.' Duke introduced its voluntary buyout program at the end of April. It was one of several budget measures the university pursued, including hiring freezes, postponed construction and renovation projects, and cuts to non-essential spending, after Duke President Vincent Price directed administrators to develop a strategic plan to reduce expenses by as much as $350 million back in March. 'We are working to prepare for the possibility that the university will have to adopt new ways of operating in order to fulfill our teaching, research, and clinical care missions with reduced federal funding in the future,' wrote Price at the time. However, even after those cost-reduction measures were enacted and the university realized what the administrators called 'a high rate' of voluntary staff separations, they concluded 'we will unfortunately need to further reduce the university workforce to ensure we can responsibly support and invest in our important missions.' Duke did not identify a specific number of staff that would be terminated or the units that might be targeted. All departments and units have been asked 'to reassess their budgets and identify any further non-personnel expense reductions that can be made.' Those assessments will then help determine the scale of the involuntary staff reductions that are needed. The Duke Chronicle reported that it had 'received multiple reports of broad cuts across the libraries, student affairs, Office of Information Technology and communications.' One other unknown for Duke's budget and the magnitude of staff terminations that might occur is how many faculty might elect to retire under a different incentivized program, announced in June. Friday's message indicated that 'more than 250 eligible faculty members across the university are currently considering voluntary retirement incentive offers.' "While the challenges before us are difficult, we are confident we can navigate them as a community and maintain exceptional support for our students, our world-renowned research and our core values," wrote Duke's leaders. 'The respect and compassion we have shown and will show for our colleagues affected by the VSIP and the involuntary reduction in force reflects the very best of who we are as an institution.'
New York Times
a minute ago
- New York Times
Should I Blow the Whistle in a Hiring Process Biased in My Favor?
I have been out of work for four months. I recently had an interview for a management-level position in my field, during which the interviewer asked a number of questions regarding my marital status, parental status and spouse's occupation. I've spent most of my career in management, and the questions are clearly inappropriate and at odds with civil rights protections. I answered the questions, because I knew the responses would be in my favor: I'm a middle-aged guy whose spouse works remotely and son is in college. I'm aware of an internal candidate for the job, a younger mother of two school-age children, and the interviewer made comments about divided responsibilities and time commitments. I kind of need the job, which raises two scenarios. In the first, I withdraw from the process. Should I notify the internal candidate of the legal violation, because I suspect (although have not confirmed) that the same questions were asked of her? In the second, I accept the position. How should I deal with the other candidate, who would be my subordinate, knowing that a likely E.E.O.C. violation tainted my hire? And additionally, should I notify the E.E.O.C. myself, regardless of whether I continue with this company? — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: If you're thinking about taking action, you would be wise to talk with an employment lawyer. But the questions you mention plainly have no place in a job interview. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines are explicit about this: Such questions 'may be regarded as evidence of intent to discriminate.' Let's assume, in any case, that your suspicion is justified: that the company's questions crossed a line and did so not out of clumsy curiosity but in a way that tilted the scales against the internal candidate, a younger mother with two school-age kids. Maybe, as you have reason to wonder, the interviewer pressed her on whether she would be able to handle the job with her 'divided responsibilities.' This could well count as evidence of discrimination. Yet if you got the offer, you still couldn't be sure that it was because you were judged the 'safe' candidate. You don't actually know what happened in her interview or how management was weighing the candidates. Maybe you were always going to be the preferred pick, for reasons that have nothing to do with family logistics. Suppose, though, that you're offered the job, and it's clear that the process was wrongly stacked in your favor. The moral calculus gets thornier. Is it right to accept a job you need and are qualified for if you know the offer was tainted by bias? Turning down such a position is an especially steep price for you to pay. The internal candidate keeps her job, even if she loses out on the better one she was hoping for. That's significant, but it's not quite the same as going without a paycheck. If you were positive that you were offered the job because of unlawful discrimination, I would tell you to decline and notify both the internal candidate and the E.E.O.C. what happened. The company should be held to account and made to reform its ways. 'Conference, conciliation and persuasion' — the usual E.E.O.C. route — happens only if someone calls out the wrongdoing. But right now you don't have that certainty. Given this, I don't think you need to torch your own prospects. You may take the job if it's offered. Once you're a manager, you'll treat your subordinate with the respect she deserves. You don't owe her a confession about your suspicions, if suspicions are all you have. What you do owe her, and every colleague, is to push for a culture where these questions are never asked of job applicants again. A Bonus Question A couple of years ago, I learned that my uncle sexually abused his three daughters when they were young. As someone who was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child, I find his actions deeply appalling on many levels. Whenever he calls my mother, she accepts his calls, most likely because he's her brother, but keeps them short. My father is currently in palliative care, and we're expecting his passing soon. Although I do not want my uncle to attend the funeral, my mother won't exclude him, even though he was excluded from his own wife's funeral. Is it acceptable for me to ignore him, as my sister-in-law plans to do? I'm uncertain about how my uncle will be received by his remaining siblings, and I don't want the funeral to become a day remembered for the wrong reasons. — Name Withheld From the Ethicist: Your sister-in-law has the right idea. This isn't an occasion for your appalling relative to be affirmed or accepted, but neither is it an occasion for confronting him. Don't let the day become about this man. The focus should be on the person you're mourning. Readers Respond The previous question was from a reader who is tired of a friend talking about wanting to escape the country's current political climate by moving abroad. She wrote: I have a wealthy friend (not billions, but well over $20 million) who talks almost incessantly about leaving the country because of her and her family's concerns about the current political situation. Nearly every week, it's another 'Check this one out!' — always accompanied by a link to a villa in the south of France or a seaside four-bedroom condo overlooking the coast of Spain. I'm not the sort to let money drive a relationship; I don't defer to wealthy people, and I wouldn't expect deference if the roles were reversed. So how do you navigate things when you're simply tired of hearing the same conversation on wash, rinse, repeat? I can't just say: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' That would only create anger. But 'Have you thought about how these comments affect others?' feels condescending. I'm not sure it's appropriate to tell her to stop, or how to do it. — Name Withheld In his response, the Ethicist noted: I can imagine other misgivings you might have about these upscale escape fantasies. When the political weather in your country turns threatening, there's much to be said for staying put, if you safely can, and trying to make things better. Given her resources, your friend might wrest herself from the Sotheby's International Realty website and spend more time reviewing political campaigns that could benefit from her backing. … You don't have to make it a confrontation. There are plenty of ways to signal the realities she's exasperatingly deaf to. The next time she sends you a link to a coastal villa, you might respond with a listing for a studio apartment in a Communist-era block in Bucharest — ample stair climbing, intermittent hot water and panoramic views of concrete — explaining that it better fits your budget. If she's miffed for a minute, that's the price of honesty. And a small one, surely, compared to that spread in Cap Ferrat. Reread the full question and answer here. ⬥ The recommendation that the writer shoot back an equally inappropriate rental suggestion was just petty and passive-aggressive, serving only to irk, if not confuse, the clueless wealthy friend. Honesty among friends is always best. — Bonnie ⬥ I agree that the writer's friend's 'humble brag' is obnoxious and out of touch. I've had friends and relatives like this (in a different tax bracket) over the years who have consistently mentioned vacations that they knew I could never afford as a single mom. I came to wonder if their intentions were really that innocent. To me, it did start to feel meanspirited and condescending … 'nice nasty,' as my grandmother used to call it. Hmmm. Maybe the writer should find some more sensitive friends? — Pier ⬥ Not a fan of the passive-aggressive solution the Ethicist suggests. Better to be straightforward and have an honest conversation with the clueless friend. Something on the order of: 'Deciding to leave our country rather than remaining and working to improve things is absolutely your right. Still, for those of us not inclined to seek that solution, regardless of our personal reasons, we just can't get into your weekly searches. Could you wait until you've actually found your dream home and share that with us? Sharing your joy and the start of your new adventure is something we can celebrate with you.' A polite way of saying, 'We're just not into your ongoing real estate search.' — Emme ⬥ I love what the Ethicist suggests about sending her friend the picture of a meager apartment in Bucharest. That's good! But I don't understand what's wrong with what the writer herself came up with: 'Stop. Your friends with less money don't want to hear it.' I think that is a direct and genuine response with just the right amount of pique. —Mary Anne ⬥ I think the suggestion that the questioner respond with an 'idealized post-communist flat' was misguided. I think a better suggestion would be to respond with a more modest listing in a nonexotic location that reflects both the economic realities of the questioner and the realities of European life at that finance level. — Brian ⬥ To me, the issue is not what exotic locale to flee to, it's the focus on fleeing, and on that being something some of us may aspire to. My suggested response would be, 'Whatever the situation is, I'm not moving, so please don't send me any more real estate suggestions.' — Linda
