Mediaboss Marketing

Agreement on a $1 trillion bill to fund the budget through Sept. 30 includes provisions that could affect New Jersey Wochit

The New Jersey State House in Trenton.(Photo: Nicholas Pugliese/northjersey.com)

As part of their $34.7 billion spending plan introduced Monday night, Democrats hope to spendsome $350 million on top of the budget Gov. Chris Christie proposed in February to give to schools, scholarships and other priorities.

That plan, however, relies on revenue assumptions that have provedoverly ambitious in five of the past seven years and would draw down the states surplus a cushion built into the budgetshould anything go wrong to a level lawmakers from both parties consider uncomfortably low.

All the while, New Jersey is facing a gaping structural budget deficit fueled by ballooning pension costs that will only get worse at the start of 2018, when the next round of Christie-backed tax cuts phases in, according to an analysis released last month by Moody's Investors Service.

It is not a budget that I think anyone particularly likes, Assembly Budget Chairman Gary Schaer, D-Passaic, said Tuesday. Historically, its the type of budget weve been doing each and every year under the Christie administration, which is simply try to get by.

Assemblyman Gary Schaer, D-Passaic.(Photo: Adam Anik/NorthJersey.com)

The fate of the Democratic spending plan is still unknown. Lawmakers have until the end of the week to pass a budget and send it to Christie, who has the power to veto it line by line before signing it into law.

Democratic leaders have sought in recent days to negotiate a budget with Christie that they know he will sign, but they remain divided over a controversial proposal to allow the state to funnel reserves from its largest health insurer, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, into a fund for anti-addiction initiatives.

According to several legislative sources, Christie has tied passage of that measure and another to transfer the state lottery into the pension system to his support for the Democrats spending plan. The House and Assembly are expected to vote Thursday on the budget bill, which can still undergo revisions.

There are items for members of both parties to applaud in the Democrats version of the budget. On the education front, the plan provides $100 million in new state aid for public schools plus $25 million to expand prekindergarten programs throughout the state.

It allocates $25 million to extraordinary aid for special education, an element that apparently was added after discussions with the Christie administration. And more controversially, it redirects $31 million down from $46 million under a previous proposal to underfunded districts from those that receive more than the states existing school funding law says they should. Cuts to any one district are capped at 2 percent of state aid.

The budget proposal also finds money for a slew of relatively unobjectionable programs and causes: $8 million for prisoner reentry programs, $6.5 million for tuition aid grants, $2.2 million for domestic violence and rape prevention, $2 million for cancer research and $145,000 for Boys & Girls Clubs, among others.

But in a big-picture sense, the budget is disappointing to lawmakers like Assemblyman Declan OScanlon, the Republican budget officer from Monmouth County.

Why are we not talking about real reforms to fix our overall budget? he said Tuesday. The longer we wait, the deeper this hole gets.

Assemblyman Declan OScanlon, R-Monmouth, at a 2016 press conference.(Photo: John C. Ensslin/NorthJersey.com)

Moodys wrote in a May analysis that a mix of tax hikes and structural spending cuts is the only way to ward off a looming financial crisis in New Jersey. Otherwise, economic growth alone is unlikely to fill a budget gapthat could reach $3.6 billion by 2023.

In other words, revenue is not predicted to keep pace with the state's fiscal obligations, primarily those related to its beleaguered pension system.

That report was released a week after the Christie administration said it was facing a projected $527 million revenue shortfall in the current fiscal year, an announcement that has become something of a springtime routine in the Christie years.

The administration has missed its revenue targets in five of itsseven budgets, and state revenues will face even more pressure in 2018 as additional cuts to the sales, estate and other taxes negotiated by Christie last year in exchange for a 23-cent-a-gallon increase to the gasoline tax are phased in.

Liberal activists held a press conference outside the State House on Monday to criticize the Democrats' proposed budget for not doing more for environmental programs, NJ Transit and low-income families. Spending on those items has been crowded out by other budget demands.

Even against this backdrop, Democrats believe they have found a way to pay for all their 2018 budget priorities.

Most significantly, they rely primarily on revenue estimates from the Christie administration that, as of May, were about $231 million higher than estimates from the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services. State Treasurer Ford Scudder said in May that he could generate $200 million in additional revenues in the2018 fiscal year by improvingNew Jerseys tax collection methods.

Democrats would also tap New Jerseys Homestead Benefit program, which is designed to lessen the property tax burden on elderly and disabled homeowners. Just as the Christie administration this year intends to delay some payments to municipalities and homeowners until July to help manage its projected revenue shortfall, Democratic lawmakers plan to defer $145 million in Homestead payments to the 2019 fiscal year to free up money for other priorities.

In addition, Democrats plan to draw down the states surplus to $413million, or 1.2 percent of theirbudget. Thats $39million less than what the Christie administration has proposed and much lower than the national median of about 5 percent of state appropriations.

Its your cushion, OScanlon said of the purpose of the surplus. If you have a cushion, it makes dealing with a revenue shortfall realistic.

Running a low surplus, however, leaves New Jersey little wiggle room should state revenues take an unanticipated hit.

Who loses then? OScanlon said. Its the people who depend on state services. The poor, the middle class, people with developmentally disabled loved ones.

Schaer agreed that New Jerseys low surplus is troublesome and has been for many years.

The problem is obviously that the more money you put into surplus, the less money you have to meet the needs of New Jerseyans, Schaer said.

Email: pugliese@northjersey.com

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2tlSFC5

Read more:
NJ Democrats' $34.7B budget proposal comes with risks - NorthJersey.com

A string of decidedly conservative rulings from new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has Democratic senators grumbling: We told you so.

During his less than three months he has occupied late Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the high court, Gorsuch is sending signals that he could be one of its most conservative jurists. He has often aligned himself with the judicial stalwarts of the right, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Story Continued Below

Gorsuch publicly disagreed with his colleagues' decision to pass up a challenge to the McCain-Feingold law's ban on so-called soft money. He dissented from a ruling enforcing same-sex couple's rights to have their names on their children's birth certificates. He lamented the court's refusal to hear a case about the right to carry a weapon in public. He took a strong stand in favor of churches' right to public subsidies. And he signed an opinion saying he would have allowed President Donald Trump's travel ban to go into effect now, in full.

"We've got another Scalia," declared Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Feinstein told POLITICO she'd looked at Gorsuch's early rulings and saw no sign of moderation from conservative orthodoxy. "Right down the line. Everything everything," she said. "I'm surprised that it's so comprehensive."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut a former Supreme Court clerk said Gorsuch's early record on the court is in tension with the humble and evenhanded approach he touted during his confirmation hearings in March.

Sign up for our must-read newsletter on what's driving the afternoon in Washington.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

"In a way, I'm surprised that he hasnt demonstrated more independence. I am surprised because in his demeanor and his tone he really made a huge effort to show his openness which some of us thought might be more an act than it was a real persona," Blumenthal said, before adding: "So far, I have to say Im disappointed."

While some thought Gorsuch's history of concern for religious freedom might give him pause about Trump's travel ban executive order seen by critics as part of a ban on Muslims, the new justice joined Thomas and Alito in an opinion issued Monday saying Trump had a strong chance of prevailing in the litigation and should be able to move ahead with his plan.

"On the travel ban, I think hes fulfilling the worst expectations so far of his opponents and probably the best hopes of his supporters," Blumenthal said. The conservative faction "gave every indication they were ready willing and able to uphold the travel ban in its entirety. So as for any objection he has, he seems to be firmly in the administrations corner."

At Gorsuch's confirmation hearings, some Democrats like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said the enthusiastic support the 10th Circuit judge was getting from groups like the Federalist Society, the National Rifle Association and others showed that they had very solid indications that he would back their views on issues like campaign finance or gun rights, even though his record of writings and rulings on those topics was slim.

"It sure looks like I was right," Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Tuesday. "Its too early to draw any final conclusions but the early signals are ominous about him being the tool of the creepy billionaire coalition."

Whitehouse said Gorsuch's indication last month that he wanted to consider overturning the ban on soft money was the "most alarming" of his actions thus far.

"When you look at what the Supreme Court has done to enable the dark money deluge that the Republicans backers profit so much from, he sent a pretty strong signal that hes all for unlimited money, dark money and the rest of the pestilence that Citizens United unleashed," the Rhode Island Democrat said, referring to the high court's 2009 ruling that set in motion the rise of Superpacs and a flood of undisclosed political donations.

Like some Democratic nominees before him, Gorsuch was cagey about many of his views during his hearings. But Whitehouse said there's a complex method of signaling, second-hand reports and vouching that informs key leaders on where a nominee stands.

"When the power brokers see enough semaphore, they can draw the logical conclusion that this is going to be our guy," Whitehouse said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans had a sharply different assessment of Gorsuch's early tenure.

"He's fantastic. Hes awesome. I'm a huge fan," gushed Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, a former Supreme Court clerk and the only lawmaker on Trump's list of potential justices. "Its going as I expected and my expectations were high and Ive not been disappointed in the least."

"I think he is performing as a principled constitutionalist, which is exactly what we hoped for and expected," added Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, another former clerk.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said Gorsuch's early moves were "stretching the thinking of the justices."

"He's going to go down in history as one of the great ones," Tillis said confidently.

Tillis also said he's sure Gorsuch will demonstrate independence from the Trump administration. "I have no doubt in my mind. ," the North Carolina Republican said. "Justice Gorsuch has a lifetime appointment. The beauty of it is: nobody can fire him. I think he's been independent and is going to continue to be independent."

Some Democrats did say they are still holding out hope on that front, to some degree or another.

"There may be some issues I think where you see the loyalties of the Republican appointees tend to be more toward the right-wing billionaire coalition than to a particular president, so if Trump does something dumb or flagrantly unconstitutional, I dont see him getting a big pass on that," Whitehouse said.

Blumenthal noted that the justice he clerked for, Harry Blackmun, started out conservative and grew more centrist or even liberal over the years.

"The jury is still out. He has yet to finish a full term. Well see what his profile is on a lot of cases," Blumenthal said. "The big question will be whether he veers away from the ideological lane where he started and grows in the job."

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See more here:
Democrats pan early Gorsuch rulings - Politico

President Trump suggested the special prosecutor's team might not be fair, impartial investigators because of previous political contributions, legal clients and personal friends. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

The people that have been hired are all Hillary Clinton supporters. Some of them worked for Hillary Clinton. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous, if you want to know the truth, from that standpoint. President Trump, interview with Fox & Friends, June 23, 2017

Then who does Mueller select to help lead the independent investigation? Four top lawyers, all major donors to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Party. One of them even worked for the Clinton Foundation. Only in Washington could a rigged game like this be called independent. Pro-Trump group Great America Alliance, political ad, June 23, 2017

President Trump and his surrogates are attacking the judgment and independence of former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation and related matters. They are criticizing the political contributions of some of the attorneys hired to Muellers team, questioning the investigators independence.

Trump claimedthe attorneys are all supporters of Hillary Clinton and worked for her. The ad described the hires as a part of a rigged game.Lets dig into it.

The attacks aimed at discrediting Mueller one month into his special investigation are similar to efforts by former president Bill Clintons supporterstwo decades ago. Democrats at the timeworked to undermineKenneth Starr, special counsel whose investigations ultimately led to Clintons impeachment in the House. They painted Starr as an unethical investigator with a conflict of interest conducting a partisan witch hunt.

Mueller has hired 13 attorneys and is expected to hire more. Most are veteran attorneys at the Justice Department or the FBI, or attorneys Mueller worked with at the WilmerHale law firm, which he left in May whenhe was appointed special counsel. The members who have been made public:

Four (Quarles, Weissmann, Rhee, Prelogar) have made political contributions to Democrats and four (Zebley, Dreeben, Page, Jed) have no record of making political contributions. Previous news reports incorrectly identified Dreeben as a Democratic donor, mistaking him for a furniture designer in Chicago named Michael W. Dreeben.

Quarles gave the most political donations out of the four nearly$33,000 to various Democrats since 1999, Federal Election Commission records show. Recipients included Obama for America, Hillary for America and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Quarles is the only one who donated to Republicans. In 2005, he gave $250 to then-Sen. George Allen of Virginia.In 2015, he gave $2,500 to Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican and chairman of the House Oversight Committee who later wouldinvestigate Hillary Clintons private email server use.

Weissmann donated $4,300 total to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008 and the Democratic National Committee in 2006. Rhee gave $5,400 total to Hillary for America in 2015 and 2016; $5,800 total in 2008 and 2011 to the Obama Victory Fund; and $250 to the DNCin 2004. (Quarles and Rhee gave maximum contributions of $2,700 to Clintons 2016 presidential campaign.)Prelogar donated $500 total to Obama Victory fund in 2012 and Hillary for America in 2016.

Rhee was a partner on the defense team representing the Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit over Clintons use of her private email server. Zebley once represented a Clinton aide at WilmerHale, PolitiFact found.

So Trump twisted the facts: Not all of Muellers hires supported Clinton, and none of them worked for Clinton directly.The White House did not provide an explanation of Trumps claim.

A Great America Alliance spokesman said the ads message is that hiring four high-profile attorneys who contributed to Democrats means Mueller cannot credibly claim to conduct an investigation without some inherent bias or conflict.

An independent investigation should actually be independent and Mr. Mueller is failing to achieve that standard, the spokesman said. Stacking the investigative team with political opponents of the president will not achieve an unbiased result and we are committed to exposing this reality.

But that overlooks important context. Federal regulations prohibit the Justice Department from considering the political affiliation or political contributions of career appointees, including those appointed to the Special Counsels Office. So the implication that Mueller is making politically motivated hires is quite a stretch, as he is legally prohibited from considering their political affiliations.

Under the Rules of Professional Responsibility, attorneys are permitted to participate in matters involving their former firms clients so long as they have no confidential information about the client and did not participate in the representation, said Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsels Office. Moreover,attorneys are bound by confidentiality rules and may not useinformation they learned from one client (say, Clinton Foundation) and divulge it in another case (say, the Russia probe).

The Justice Departments ethics experts found Mueller and those he hired from his former firm are consistent with DOJ rules, Carr said. This was despite concerns over WilmerHales representation of Trumps former campaign manager Paul Manafort, son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump.

Mueller reports to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. In a June 13 Senate hearing, Rosenstein said it is not a disqualification for a lawyer in the Special Counsels Office to have made a political donation, and that as a general matter, it is not a disqualification for a lawyer to have represented Clinton in the past.

That Rhee represented the Clinton Foundation is irrelevant, said Stephen Gillers, expert in legal ethics at the New York University School of Law:The Mueller investigation is not about Clintons emails. The two matters are apples and oranges. A lawyer could work on both.

In fact, the lead defense attorney that Rhee worked with on the Clinton Foundation case now represents Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

Trump mischaracterized the donations from Muellers attorneys and falsely claimed some even worked for Hillary Clinton. Four out of eight attorneys made public so far have contributed to Democrats, including Clinton and Obama. The other four have no record of political contributions.

One attorney who donatedthe maximum amount to Clintons 2016 presidential campaign represented the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 lawsuit. Another attorney who made no political donations represented a Clinton aide at one point. Both attorneys worked for WilmerHale, a firm that also represents Trumps former campaign manager, daughter and son-in-law.

Further, Trump and the ad use these political contributions to suggestbias orconflict of interest. But that twists the facts that misleads the public to believe there is something nefarious going on. Legally and under federal ethics rules, there is no conflict of interest. The DOJ is legally barred from discriminating career appointees based on political affiliation, so Mueller cant decide his team based on their contributions. That half of the publicly named special counsel attorneys donated to Democrats is not an indication that Mueller has failed to achieve a standard of independence. We award Three Pinocchios.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Do you rate this claim as true or false? More Pinocchios for false, fewer based on your opinion of the statement's truthfulness. (The check mark means you think the statement is true, not that you agree with the rating.)

We need to verify that you are an actual person.

This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

Read more from the original source:
Do Russia probe attorneys' donations to Democrats threaten their independence? - Washington Post

The records indicate that past Democratic primary voters turned out at nearly the same rate as past Republican primary voters (Primary vote history is the most readily available measure of partisanship in a state without party registration, like Georgia.)

Over all, 75 percent of voters who last voted in a Democratic primary turned out in the second round of voting, compared with 76 percent of those who last voted in a Republican primary. The turnout rate among voters who have never voted in a primary was 34 percent.

This might not sound like a great Democratic turnout, but it is pretty rare for the Democratic turnout rate to roughly match the Republican turnout rate, at least in a high-turnout election. Certainly, thats been true in Georgias Sixth: In 2014, Republican primary voters turned out at an eight-point higher rate than Democratic primary voters did, 77 percent to 69 percent. In the 2016 election, it was a three-point gap, 89 percent to 86 percent.

It has been true nationwide as well. According to an Upshot analysis of data from L2, a nonpartisan voter file vendor, the Democratic turnout did not match the Republican turnout rate in any recent national election, including 2006, 2008 and 2012. Iowa has complete official turnout history dating to 1982, and Democrats havent exceeded the Republican turnout rate in any of the general elections over that period in the state.

The point is: This is about as good as it gets for Democrats, at least in a reasonably high-turnout election (unusual and imbalanced turnout patterns are more common in lower-turnout contests, when even a slight enthusiasm edge translates to a big change in the composition of the electorate).

The result is that the partisan makeup of the electorate past Republican primary voters outnumbering Democrats by 24.5 points was a lot more like the 2016 presidential election than the 2014 midterm electorate, or even our estimates for a more typical midterm electorate.

The bad news for Democrats is that the Republican turnout edge was larger than in the first round of voting in April, when Republican primary voters outnumbered Democrats by 23.7 points. Thats not because Democratic turnout was weaker in the first round than the second round; turnout was up across the board. Its just that the Republican turnout, which was particularly weak in the first round, increased by more than the Democratic turnout increased.

Mr. Ossoff countered the increased Republican turnout with an equal increase in turnout among voters who have never voted in a primary, who most likely backed him by a big margin. Its an inescapable conclusion: There isnt another way he could have received 48 percent of the vote in an electorate where Republican primary voters outnumbered Democrats, 49 percent to 25 percent. Demographics also offer clues that these voters backed Mr. Ossoff; the voters who havent voted in a primary are far younger and more diverse than those who have.

Over all, voters who had never voted in a primary represented 25 percent of the electorate, up from 18 percent in the first round.

The nonwhite and youth share of the electorate also increased. Over all, 18-to-29-year-old voters represented 10.6 percent of the electorate, up from 7.4 percent in Round 1, and more than halfway between the 6 percent in the 2014 midterm elections and 13.6 percent in the 2016 presidential election. It was also up from the 2016 presidential primary, when they represented 7.9 percent of voters in the district.

Similarly, the white non-Hispanic share of voters (as indicated on their voter registration form) fell to 74 percent of the electorate, down from 75.6 percent in the first round of voting. That, too, was about halfway between 2014, when white voters represented 79 percent of the electorate, and the 2016 presidential electorate, when 71.4 percent of voters were white. Turnout of Asian-American voters, in particular, was high basically matching their share of the 2016 electorate.

There was probably one big exception: Mr. Ossoff did not benefit from such a favorable turnout among black voters. They represented 9.3 percent of voters, the same percentage as in the first round of voting. It was also lower than the 9.4 percent from 2014 or 10.6 percent in 2016.

The stability of the black share of the electorate is pretty striking. In theory, higher turnout ought to have increased the black share of the electorate as a matter of course, just as it increased the share of other low-turnout young and nonwhite, nonblack voting groups. Our pre-election estimate was that black voters would represent 10 percent of the electorate in the second round of voting; our estimate before the first round was 9.5 percent.

From the perspective of campaign mechanics, this was a prime opportunity for Democrats: two elections for field organizing, millions of dollars, a high-profile national race, and great data (the same data used here makes it easy for campaigns to target black voters). Even so, black turnout lagged.

Taken together, these two factors higher Republican turnout and higher youth and nonwhite turnout roughly canceled out.

Democrats, unsurprisingly, are disappointed by losing in Georgia. The recriminations are already underway. There are, undoubtedly, things that Democrats can hope to do better next time. There always are.

But the turnout probably isnt the thing that should keep Democrats up at night. The strong Democratic turnout fits a longer-term pattern of Democrats matching G.O.P. turnout in midterm elections when the Republicans hold the White House, essentially yielding the same partisan breakdown as a presidential election. If the same thing happens in 2018, Democrats will be much better off than they were in 2014 or 2012.

The bad news for Democrats, of course, is that even this sort of turnout is no guarantee of victory. The battle for control of the House will be fought in large part in Republican-leaning districts like Georgias Sixth, and a strong Democratic turnout alone probably wont be enough to win a high-turnout election. In many districts, the Democrats will be burdened by the additional challenge of mobilizing young, nonwhite and perhaps especially black voters.

Even a very impressive turnout like the one in Georgias Sixth might still leave them with an electorate no more favorable than the one that elected Donald J. Trump in November.

Follow this link:
Democrats' Turnout in Georgia Blew Past Typical Off-Year Levels - New York Times

The House Ethics Committee said Monday it is reviewing charges lodged against two high-profile Democratic lawmakers and a senior Democratic aide.

The lawmakers facing an ethics review are Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving sitting House member, and Rep. Ben Ray Lujn (N.M.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The staffer is Michael E. Collins, chief of staff to Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.).

Statements released Monday by the Ethics Committee did not detail the allegations against the three men, which were forwarded to the committee by the independent Office of Congressional Ethics based on a substantial reason to believe a violation has occurred.

The cases will come up for further review on Aug. 9, at which point the Office of Congressional Ethicsreport in each case will be made public and the Ethics Committee can launch a more serious investigation, dismiss the allegations or extend its review.

The Committee notes that the mere fact of a referral or an extension, and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name of the subject of the matter, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee, the panel said in each case.

A spokesman for Lujn, who is in charge of electing Democrats to the House, said the investigation is linked to a complaint filed by a conservative watchdog group last year about the sit-in led by Democrats on the House floor in response to the Orlando nightclub shooting.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust said Lujn improperly used images of Democrats on the House floor in fundraising emails. Do you stand with us? one Lujn solicitation read. Chip in $24 toward our emergency fundraising goal $1 for every hour weve been in the well of the House chamber demanding action.

This announcement is the result of a frivolous complaint, filed by a highly partisan outside group about activities during the sit-in last year a complaint that is without merit, said spokesman Joe Shoemaker. Congressman Lujn is committed to abiding by House rules, is confident he has done so in this case, and looks forward to a timely resolution by the Ethics Committee.

The Conyers investigation appears to concern the departure of a former staffer to the 88-year-old congressman. On Feb. 8, the OCE found the aide, Cynthia Martin, received compensation from the House of Representatives at a time when she may no longer have been working for the House for several months last year a violation of House rules that could implicate Conyers if he approved or was aware of improper payments.

This is not a new controversy, but rather involves the same matter that the Office of Congressional Ethics released back in February, said a statement released Monday by a Conyers spokeswoman. Rep. Conyers office has worked diligently at all times to comply with the rules, is cooperating with the Ethics Committee, and is confident that this matter can be swiftly resolved.

Brenda Jones, a spokesman for Lewis, did not describe the nature of the allegations against Collins, but said that Collins respects the process of ethics review and is cooperating with the committee.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trustfiled a separate complaint against Collins in January, alleging that he improperly held dual roles on Lewiss official staff and his campaign and that in the latter role, he accepted an excessive salary of $27,495. Collins denied any wrongdoing at the time.

Read more:
House Ethics Committee is reviewing allegations against three Democrats - Washington Post