PUBLIC RECORDS · SAME STANDARD FOR EVERY CANDIDATE
Investigations, findings & documented outcomes.
See the conduct behind the funding totals. Follow official records, read each respondent’s outcome, and distinguish allegations from findings.
5,759 candidate IDs checked · 7,669 FEC case titles scanned
The same matching rules found 304 published case numbers linked to 247 candidates’ campaigns. Complete committee names must match unambiguously and appear as respondents in the case. This is a limited lookup, not a background check or a corruption score.
Source retrieved Sep 15, 2026. Secondary respondents, name changes, and other enforcement programs can be absent.
This supplementary collection includes broader investigations and context for selected FEC matters. Most candidates have not received this narrative review. Some records also appear in the FEC index; do not add counts across collections.
6 matching case records
Most recent action first · all years
Cory MillsHouse Committee on Ethics · Investigative subcommittee established November 2025
Investigation into disclosure, campaign finance and other conduct
Investigation announced
Action date
May 11, 2026
Conduct period
Includes 2022 and 2024 campaigns and 2025 conduct
Who the record concerns
Cory Mills, personally
Conduct described in the record
The Committee authorized review of alleged disclosure failures, campaign-finance violations, improper gifts and special favors, sexual misconduct or dating violence, and misuse of congressional resources or status.
Outcome / procedural status
In the latest substantive public update located, dated May 11, 2026, the investigative subcommittee reported more than 20 subpoenas and continuing evidence collection. It had not published final findings.
Establishing the investigation is not a finding that a violation occurred. The May update notes police did not charge Mills over a February 2025 assault allegation; it also explains that this decision does not resolve the Committee’s review.
What “investigation announced” means
An authority publicly announced an investigation. This establishes a process, not that the alleged conduct occurred.
George SantosU.S. District Court / Department of Justice · 2:23-cr-00197
Fraud conviction; entire sentence later commuted
Criminal conviction
Action date
Oct 17, 2025
Conduct period
2022 campaign; guilty plea August 2024
Who the record concerns
George Anthony Devolder Santos, personally
Conduct described in the record
Santos pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. DOJ described admissions involving false campaign-finance reports and charging donors’ credit cards without authorization.
Outcome / procedural status
Sentenced to 87 months in April 2025, Santos received a presidential commutation of his entire sentence to time served on October 17, 2025. The warrant specifies no further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions.
The later commutation changes the punishment; it does not erase the guilty plea or conviction. The original prison term and monetary obligations must not be presented as still outstanding under that sentence.
What “criminal conviction” means
A guilty plea or verdict. Sentencing, appeals, and later orders are described separately.
Gift-rule finding with conditional corrective payments
Official finding
Action date
Jul 25, 2025
Conduct period
2021 Met Gala
Who the record concerns
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, personally
Conduct described in the record
The Committee found she did not fully comply with the Gift Rule: her then-partner’s free admission was impermissible and some goods were not paid for at fair-market value.
Outcome / procedural status
The report required an additional $2,733.28 payment to Brother Vellies and a $250 donation to the Costume Institute. It said no sanction was merited if these payments were made, with closure upon confirmation.
The Committee found no evidence she intentionally underpaid and credited her efforts to comply and reliance on counsel. The sources reviewed do not confirm the required payments or a later closure; corrective payments are not a civil fine.
What “official finding” means
An authority reached the finding described in the record. Its scope and evidentiary standard matter.
Ted Cruz; Truth and Courage PAC; Kris Ozanus, as treasurer
Conduct described in the record
Campaign Legal Center and End Citizens United alleged that Cruz unlawfully directed iHeart-related podcast revenue to Truth and Courage PAC and that the PAC misreported the payments.
Outcome / procedural status
The FEC voted 5–1 to dismiss both allegations and close the file. This matter did not result in a violation finding or civil penalty.
The adopted analysis said the record did not appear to show Cruz solicited or directed the payments and treated them as commercial payments. This dismissal must accompany any account of the complaint.
What “dismissed” means
The authority closed or dismissed the allegations described. The specific grounds, rather than the label alone, explain the outcome.
Dan CrenshawFederal Election Commission · MUR 8030
Campaign accepted excessive and prohibited contributions
Civil settlement
Action date
Nov 2, 2022
Conduct period
2020 election cycle
Who the record concerns
Dan Crenshaw for Congress and Paul Kilgore, in his official capacity as treasurer
Conduct described in the record
The agreement describes $207,360.20 in excessive contributions and $16,100 in apparent prohibited corporate and LLC contributions accepted by the campaign.
Outcome / procedural status
The FEC accepted a conciliation agreement requiring a $42,000 civil penalty, cessation of the violations, and compliance training for the treasurer. The file was closed.
$42,000Civil penalty agreed by campaign and treasurer
The respondent was the campaign and its treasurer, not Crenshaw personally. The agreement records refunds and redesignations, including later corrections. This was a civil settlement before a probable-cause finding, not a criminal conviction.
What “civil settlement” means
A civil matter resolved by agreement. Read the record for admissions, terms, and which respondent agreed.
Campaign misreported the source of bank-financed loans
Civil settlement
Action date
Feb 20, 2019
Conduct period
2012 Senate campaign
Who the record concerns
Ted Cruz for Senate and Bradley S. Knippa, as treasurer
Conduct described in the record
The campaign reported $1,064,000 in loans as Cruz’s personal funds, omitting the required disclosure that Goldman Sachs and Citibank were the underlying lenders.
Outcome / procedural status
The campaign and treasurer agreed to a $35,000 civil penalty and to correct the reports. The FEC accepted the agreement and closed the consolidated matters.
$35,000Civil penalty agreed by campaign and treasurer
This was a reporting violation by the campaign and treasurer. The FEC separately found no reason to believe Cruz personally violated the reporting provisions. The campaign described the omission as inadvertent.
What “civil settlement” means
A civil matter resolved by agreement. Read the record for admissions, terms, and which respondent agreed.
Read the decision before drawing a conclusion.
FEC disposition labels describe agency procedure. “No reason to believe,” dismissals, and conciliations mean different things. A case can have different outcomes for different respondents. Read the FEC’s legal search guide ↗
Civil settlement
A civil matter resolved by agreement. Read the record for admissions, terms, and which respondent agreed.
Official finding
An authority reached the finding described in the record. Its scope and evidentiary standard matter.
Criminal conviction
A guilty plea or verdict. Sentencing, appeals, and later orders are described separately.
Criminal charges
Prosecutors filed charges. The accused is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Investigation announced
An authority publicly announced an investigation. This establishes a process, not that the alleged conduct occurred.
Filed allegation
A complaint or other attributable allegation. Filing a complaint does not establish an official investigation or a violation.
Dismissed
The authority closed or dismissed the allegations described. The specific grounds, rather than the label alone, explain the outcome.