MapWatchScheduleDaily RecordMembersCommitteesLegislationNominationsMoneySpecial RulesSubpoenasHouse EthicsForeign InfluenceAgenciesRegulationsOffice SpendingUS Code

Get a weekly summary of what Congress did, delivered every Sunday.

  • About
  • How Congress Works
  • Quiz
  • Congress Wrapped
  • Support Us
  • Roadmap
  • Health
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
WhiteHouse.wiki•SCOTUS.wiki
Congress.wiki Alpha

This is not an official government website.

© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.

Search⌘K
MapWatchScheduleDaily RecordMembersCommitteesLegislationNominationsMoneySpecial RulesSubpoenasHouse EthicsForeign InfluenceAgenciesRegulationsOffice SpendingUS Code
Referral·Office of Congressional Ethicsreferral

OCE Report Regarding Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick

Published May 29, 202527 pages
View source PDFOriginal source

Briefing

The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) reviewed allegations about Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick regarding community project funding, campaign contributions, and use of Member Representational Allowance (MRA) funds. The OCE found substantial reason to believe she requested community project funding that would be directed to a for-profit entity, probable cause she accepted campaign contributions linked to an official action, and substantial reason to believe her congressional office made improper MRA payments (or alternatively her campaign accepted unreported in-kind contributions). The OCE recommended the Committee on Ethics further review those three matters and dismissed two other alle­

Allegations

  • [high]Requested community project funding that would be directed to a for-profit entity (Figgers-related projects).
  • [high]Accepted campaign contributions linked to an official action (Figgers family contributions around time of funding).
  • [high]Congressional office made payments to Figgers Enterprise Inc. with MRA funds; alternatively, campaign may have accepted and failed to report in-kind contributions that may have exceeded limits.
  • [medium]Dispensed special favors or privileges to friends in connection with community project funding (alleged re: Commissioner Michael Joseph).
  • [medium]Campaign misreported the source of a campaign contribution or accepted a contribution made by one person in the name of another (alleged refund and subsequent contribution from Betty Figgers).

Findings

  • [referred]There is substantial reason to believe Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick requested community project funding that would be directed to a for-profit entity.
  • [referred]There is probable cause to believe Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick accepted campaign contributions linked to an official action.
  • [referred]There is substantial reason to believe Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick’s congressional office made payments to an entity in violation of House committee rules and standards of conduct—or alternatively, that her campaign accepted and failed to report in-kind contributions that may have exceeded applicable limits.
  • [no violation]There is not substantial reason to believe Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick dispensed special favors or privileges to friends in connection with community project funding.
  • [no violation]There is not substantial reason to believe Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick’s campaign misreported the source of a campaign contribution or accepted a contribution made by one person in the name of another.

This summary is generated by AI from the official document. Read the source PDF for the authoritative text.