Earlier this month, as we covered, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) put his foot down that he was voting against the continuing resolution (CR), though it still passed. He even fundraised off of his stance. The move cemented Ossoff's status as a top target for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). It's also resulted in an ethics complaint from the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT).
On Friday morning, in a letter shared exclusively with Townhall, Kendra Arnold, the executive director for FACT, sent a request to Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Chris Coons (D-DE), the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics. The letter mentions and includes that fundraising pitch from Ossoff, dated March 14, 2025.
As her letter mentioned early on to explain:
Facts. On March 14, 2025, Senator Ossoff sent an email that only contained two subjects: (1) that he planned to vote against a specific bill; and (2) a request for a campaign contribution. The email began with the statement: “I will vote ‘NO’ on the Trump/Musk/ 1 Johnson ‘CR.’” Following several statements about the bill, he then makes a direct request for a campaign contribution: “If you can afford it, please rush $5 to Jon Ossoff’s re-election campaign today. If you’ve stored your info with ActBlue, we’ll process your contribution instantly.” The entirety of the email had the tone and format of a campaign fundraising email, but unfortunately the subject matter was entirely based upon his official action of voting on a specific piece of legislation.
Citing and linking to the Senate Ethics Rules, Arnold's letter makes even more clear how Ossoff erred with such a fundraising email.
As her letter goes on to read, with citations included [emphasis original to the letter]:
Law. Senate Ethics Rules specifically prohibit Senators from soliciting campaign contributions based upon any action taken in their official capacity. By linking a promise of official action with campaign contributions, a Senator violates a “basic principle” of Senate Ethics that guards against conflicts of interest. The Senate Ethics Manual is clear that a Senator “should never use the prestige or influence of a position in the Senate for personal gain . . . . This provision was intended ‘as a broad prohibition against members, officers or employees deriving financial benefit, directly or indirectly, from the use of their official position.’” Even the “appearance” or “possibility” that a Member is “cashing in” or has a “personal financial stake in the outcome of their official duties” is to be avoided. Moreover, Senators are required to act based upon merit, and not on partisan affiliation or for campaign contributions.
Fundraising Tied To Official Action. By linking official action (i.e., voting no on a specific bill) with an appeal for campaign contributions, Senator Ossoff violated the basic requirement of the Senate Ethics Rules that “every Senator always must endeavor to avoid the appearance that the Senator, the Senate, or the governmental process may be influenced by campaign contributions[.]” While the Senate Ethics Committee “does not endorse or require any specific procedures” for eliminating the appearance of impropriety when fundraising, it has favorably noted that “a number of Senators have instituted practices to strictly separate fundraising from substantive legislative [] activities.” Senator Ossoff’s solicitations, on the other hand, inextricably intertwine his campaign fundraising with his promise to vote no on specific legislation.
This includes, as Arnold's letter goes on to explain, even just "actions that create an appearance of impropriety," once more citing the Senate Ethics Manual.
The letter goes on to explain even further from there how Ossoff's fundraising pitch puts him in the wrong. "In essence, by employing this fundraising tactic, Sen. Ossoff indicates to potential contributors that his official actions can be influenced by campaign contributions. This is exactly the kind of appearance of impropriety that the Senate Ethics Rules aim to prohibit," Arnold warns. "Moreover, this fundraising tactic dangerously incentivizes Senators to take official action based on their estimation of what will raise the most campaign funds. Senators, who are nearly always raising campaign funds, will be rightly seen as making important official decisions based on what will bring in the most money—not on the merits of an issue."
Arnold thus notes that "the Senate Select Committee on Ethics should act on Senator Ossoff’s case and enforce the prohibition against fundraising based upon official action."
Democrats, Ossoff included, have made it their mission to go after President Donald Trump and Elon Musk of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), just as the senator does with such an email.
As the fundraising pitch reads in part [emphasis original]:
I will vote ‘NO’ on the Trump/Musk/Johnson ‘CR.’
First of all: it’s not a CR (continuing resolution) at all.
A continuing resolution would continue funding at last year’s levels. This bill is something else: a nasty new partisan budget.
...
Moreover: the bill imposes no checks on Trump or Musk.
The President is reckless and out-of-control.
He’s destabilizing our economy.
He’s delegated massive power to Earth’s richest man — his chief campaign contributor — who is remaking our government according to his whim.
***
Every year I’ve been in the Senate we’ve had a real bipartisan budget.
Until now.
Speaker Johnson decided to go it alone with whatever the White House wanted.
Now they feel entitled to Democratic support.
They won’t have mine.
- Sen. Jon Ossoff
Besides how allowing the government to shut down would have given Trump and Musk too much control, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) himself warned about, he caved and voted in favor of advancing the CR. The bill also enjoyed support from Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine in the House, and on the final passage, it enjoyed the support of retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Sen. Angus King, an Independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats. It was thus not as partisan as Ossoff wants Georgia voters to believe.
Such is a move that, as the NRSC has argued, puts him at odds with the people of Georgia, as he looks to oppose the president more than deliver for the people of his state. Sure enough, Ossoff's own fundraising pitch contains a blurb as to how "Jon Ossoff in Georgia is the ONLY Democratic Senator running for re election in a state Trump won," which could very well hurt him come November 2026.
DOGE is finding billions of dollars in wasteful spending, and the Democrats are losing their minds as they realize their gravy train and woke projects are coming to an end.
Help us continue to report on DOGE's accomplishments and expose leftist corruption. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member