Rep. Cori Bush finds herself under scrutiny as the Justice Department investigates her campaign spending on security services, particularly payments made to her husband, a former security guard she married last year. While she claims to be fully cooperating with the investigation, some questions linger.
In 2023, an analysis of her campaign reports reveals that Bush spent a significant $129,660.22 on private security, with the last quarter’s report still pending. It’s noteworthy that her husband received $42,500 from her campaign during the first three quarters of the previous year for roles categorized as “wage expense” and “security services.”
Though House lawmakers are generally prohibited from diverting campaign funds for personal use, exceptions are made for security expenses. Members of Congress can use campaign funds for private security and, in some cases, compensate family members, as long as they offer genuine services at fair market rates. However, the hiring of spouses or family members on their official staff is strictly prohibited due to anti-nepotism rules.
Bush has staunchly defended her spending, citing the need to protect herself as a high-profile member of the progressive “squad.” The surge in threats against congressional members in recent years, particularly after the January 6th insurrection, has raised concerns about their safety outside the Capitol campus.
While her cooperation with the investigation is acknowledged, the circumstances surrounding these payments still raise eyebrows. A spokesperson for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Christie Stephenson, reminds us of the presumption of innocence, stating, “Like any other American, she is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is our expectation that the investigation will follow the facts, apply the law, and be conducted in a professional manner.”
The D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office remains tight-lipped, neither confirming nor denying the existence of investigations. However, the situation does leave room for some skepticism and unanswered questions about the nature of these payments and their compliance with campaign finance regulations.
