Congress
Attorney with group that filed Santos FEC complaint expects commissioners will block investigation
Embattled N.Y. congressman facing multiple investigations
An attorney with the group that filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Monday against U.S. Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) said the agency is unlikely to pursue an investigation or bring any enforcement action against the congressman or his campaign.
“There are at least three commissioners who are ideologically opposed to enforcing campaign finance law,” Campaign Legal Center Senior Vice President and Legal Director Adav Noti told the Washington Blade by phone on Tuesday.
With a 4-vote majority of the FEC’s six sitting commissioners required to open an investigation, “the working assumption has to be — for every FEC complaint, no matter how egregious — that at least three commissioners will block an investigation,” Noti said.
Noti previously served in the FEC’s Office of General Counsel as associate general counsel for policy and in the Litigation Division, where he argued cases before federal district and appellate courts as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, including the landmark 2010 Citizens United v. FEC. case
Notwithstanding what may happen at the FEC, Noti told the Blade the Santos case is unlike anything he had ever seen, in multiple respects.
Per the Campaign Legal Center’s complaint, Santos and his 2022 campaign committee, Devolder-Santos for Congress, stand accused of engaging “in a straw donor scheme to knowingly and willfully conceal the true sources of $705,000 that Santos purported to loan to his campaign; deliberately reporting false disbursement figures on FEC disclosure reports, among many other reporting violations and illegally using campaign funds to pay for personal expenses, including rent on a house that Santos lived in during the campaign.”
Some of these allegations, which sometimes result in prosecutions, happen, unfortunately, “with some regularity,” Noti said. “But I cannot think of another situation where a successful candidate turns out to have fabricated his entire campaign apparatus.”
Noti said candidates will sometimes falsify the source of the money they received to fund their campaigns, and other times they will conceal how they spent those funds, but “I can’t think of another instance where every dollar that went into a campaign and a significant portion of the dollars that were spent by that campaign appear to be fictitious, or just made up.”
Looking at the money that was funneled through the campaign, even if assuming that the dollar amounts that were reported were accurate, “we don’t know where it came from, and we know where almost none of it went,” Noti said.
Unfortunately, however, “Even in the highly unlikely event that the FEC does conduct an investigation or [pursue an enforcement action,] it would take years,” Noti said, adding that slow-rolling the process is another means by which the commissioners can prevent the agency from enforcing the law.
Nevertheless, Santos is in potential legal jeopardy.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office and New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office have opened investigations into the congressman.
On Tuesday, Congressmen Ritchie Torres and Daniel Goldman — both Democrats — filed a complaint against Santos to the House Ethics Committee.
Noti said the Justice Department’s case would be a criminal probe into Santos’ possible violations of campaign finance laws, but otherwise the FEC has sole jurisdiction over these matters, so other legal actors are likely looking into other types of financial malfeasance by the congressman.
The FEC will typically wait for the resolution of a criminal probe initiated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office before proceeding with a complaint, Noti said. “If the DOJ starts investigating, they’ll tell the FEC, and then the FEC will wait for the criminal investigation to conclude.”
Either way, “I would be shocked if [Santos] were not seeking legal counsel,” Noti said, adding that he might have a difficult time finding an attorney to represent him.
Santos has been under fire for weeks after media reports revealed the congressman had lied about virtually every aspect of his life, career and identity.
With respect to his treatment of campaign finance laws, “What he did was intentionally deprive the public of the information that voters are entitled to before they decide who to vote for,” Noti said.
Congress
Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor
One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul
Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”
Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.
Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.
To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.
A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”
Congress
House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms
Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move
A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.
Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.
The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).
The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”
“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.
They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”
“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.
Congress
Senate parliamentarian orders removal of gender-affirming care ban from GOP reconciliation bill
GOP Senate Leader John Thune (S.D.) hoped to pass the bill by end-of-week
Restrictions on the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care will be stripped from the Republican-led Senate reconciliation bill, following a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian on Tuesday that struck down a number of health related provisions.
The legislation banned coverage for transgender medical care through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, language that was also included in the House version of the bill passed on May 22 with a vote of 215-214.
The parliamentarian’s decision also rejected Republican proposals for a Medicaid provider tax framework, which allows states to charge health care providers and use the funds to support their programs, along with broader cuts to Medicaid.
Amid calls to override Tuesday’s ruling from Republicans like U.S. Rep. Greg Steube (Fla.), GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) told reporters “That would not be a good outcome for getting a bill done.”
He also acknowledged that the timing and schedule might have to be adjusted. Senate Republicans had hoped to pass the reconciliation bill by the end of this week, though this was not a legal or procedural deadline.
Dubbed the “one big, beautiful bill” by President Donald Trump, the legislation would extend tax breaks from 2017 that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations. To cover the cost, which is estimated to exceed $4 trillion over 10 years, the bill would make drastic cuts to social welfare programs, particularly Medicaid.
Democrats are not in a position to negotiate across the aisle with Republicans holding majorities in both chambers of Congress, but for months they have been calling attention to the effort by their GOP colleagues to strip Americans of their health insurance to pay for the tax breaks.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 10.9 million people would lose their coverage, either through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Some Republicans like U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) are pushing back against the deep cuts to Medicaid, arguing they would be devastating for many of their constituents and also to hospitals, nursing homes, and community health care providers in rural areas.
In a statement emailed to the Washington Blade on Tuesday, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said, “Anti-trans extremists are attempting to use the full power of the government to hurt kids, and recent Supreme Court decisions in Skrmetti and Medina are enabling their quest.”
While today’s ruling by the Senate parliamentarian is a temporary win, I will keep pushing back on these shameful attempts to harm trans kids and their families for trying to live authentically,” said the senator, who also serves as ranking member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who is gay and chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, also shared a statement with the Washington Blade addressing the parliamentarian’s ruling:
“This ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian is a win for the transgender people who rely on Medicaid and CHIP to access the healthcare they need to live fuller, happier, and healthier lives—but the fight is not over yet,” the congressman said.
“Republican Senators must abide by her ruling and remove the ban from the final version of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill,” he said. “Yet, even with this provision removed, this bill is terrible for the American people, including trans Americans. Every Equality Caucus member voted against it in the House and we’re ready to do so again if the Senate sends it back to the House.”
The Human Rights Campaign issued a press release with a statement from the organization’s vice president for government affairs, David Stacy:
“The fact remains that this bill belongs in the trash. It continues to include devastating cuts to health care programs — including Medicaid — that would disproportionately harm the LGBTQ+ community, all so the already rich can receive huge tax cuts,” Stacy said.
“While it comes as a relief that the Senate parliamentarian concluded that one provision in the nightmarish reconciliation bill that would have denied essential, best practice health care to transgender adults does not belong, we aren’t done fighting,” he said. “With attacks on our community coming from many directions, including the Supreme Court, we will work to defeat this bill with everything we’ve got.”
Can we still celebrate Fourth of July this year?
Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor
GenOUT Chorus offers solace, strength to LGBTQ teens
Is it time for DC to have new congressional representation?
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
Spanberger touts equality, reproductive rights in Arlington
Two new books on dining out LGBTQ-style
‘Andy Warhol in Iran’ a charming look at intersection of art, politics
Pragmatic presidents invest in America
