Your Tax Dollars Are Helping Katie Porter Promote Her Anti-Corruption Crusade

California Rep. Katie Porter (D.), who has worked to craft an image as an anti-corruption crusader, funneled over $200,000 in taxpayer dollars to campaign-like advertisements lauding her efforts to “Hold Oil Companies Accountable” and fight “corporate price gouging,” a move that ethics experts say could put her on the wrong side of campaign finance laws.

Porter’s office last year paid $227,000 in taxpayer dollars to a pair of Democratic firms for digital ads and mailers touting the Democrat’s record. Though technically not campaign ads, the ads used promotional language and photos that closely mirrored Porter’s campaign materials from the same period. Federal Regulations Require lawmakers to keep their campaigns and congressional offices apart and to prohibit the repurposing of campaign material for public purposes.

According to ethics watchdog Kendra Arnold, Porter’s ad spending may put her on the wrong side of these rules.

“The law absolutely prohibits members from using taxpayer dollars for political purposes,” Arnold, the executive director of Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, spoke to the Washington Free Beacon “Clearly running political-style campaign ads with official funds would fall under this rule.”

Porter’s chances of being elected to succeed Dianne Feinstein (D.) could be harmed by these accusations. Porter has pitched She is a candidate for the office of president. “warrior” Who will? “stand up to special interests” Hold Republicans “accountable for rigging our democracy.” Porter could be hindered by unethical conduct as she enters a new chapter. Be contentious Democratic primary alongside well-known candidates like Barbara Lee and Adam Schiff.

Porter’s communications director Jordan Wong denied any office wrongdoing in a statement to the Free BeaconNoting that all public expenditure was made outside of the “60-day black-out periods” Before the election. Wong also insisted that Porter’s publicly funded materials were reviewed and approved by the bipartisan Communications Standards Commission, and that House rules permit lawmakers to use taxpayer money to update their constituents on legislative activities.

But Arnold disagreed with Wong’s characterization of the ads, which tout Porter as a fighter who “Crack[s] Down“On abuse and “holds corporations accountable for price-gouging.”

“If the substance of a taxpayer-funded ad and a campaign ad are substantially similar or identical, that indicates both are in fact for a political purpose and both are campaign ads,” Arnold stated. “In this instance, it seems that not only were the ads’ substance similar or the exact same but also that the same vendor was used in her campaign and hers.” Arnold added.