It's been a rough several months for Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). The congresswoman, who has been in office for 30 years and currently chairs the House Oversight Committee, lost her seat to Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) in the August primary that pitted incumbent against incumbent. Maloney is still in the news, though, as she allegedly asked for an invitation to the Met Gala, Nicholas Wu reported earlier on Monday for POLITICO's "Congress Minutes."
Maloney's chief of staff tried to keep the Met inside her congressional district: pic.twitter.com/nQZfCEZ6jN
— Nicholas Wu (@nicholaswu12) November 21, 2022
Investigators are alleging Maloney, who'd been a longtime Met Gala, sought out an invite after being cut from the invite list in 2016.
— Nicholas Wu (@nicholaswu12) November 21, 2022
It's not against the rules for lawmakers to be invited to these events and to go for free, but it has to be an "unsolicited" invite pic.twitter.com/iueoGZlfZQ
As Wu explains:
Who gets an invite? Investigators alleged Maloney, who has been a longtime attendee of the Met Gala, had sought out an invitation for herself after being cut from the invite list in 2016. Maloney called a former president of the Met, Emily Rafferty, to request an invite, according to testimony Rafferty gave investigators. She ended up getting an invite that year and attended every year after. Maloney told investigators she did not remember making the call.
Investigators found Maloney may also have asked for an invitation for the 2020 Met Gala, citing an email thread with a staffer in which she asked whether she was invited and how to contact the Met’s government affairs staffer. Lawmakers are generally allowed to attend charitable gatherings for free like the Met Gala if the invitation is unsolicited. But Maloney’s efforts to get an invite could run afoul of the law.
The committee released a report on Monday, which found that Maloney "may have solicited or accepted impermissible gifts associated with her attendance at the Met Gala. If Rep. Maloney solicited or accepted impermissible gifts, then she may have violated House rules, standards of conduct and federal law."
Recommended
In a vote of 5-0, with zero abstentions, the recommendation is "that the Committee further review the above allegation concerning Rep. Maloney because there is substantial reason to believe that she solicited or accepted impermissible gifts associated with her attendance at the Met Gala."
The report later notes that "these findings do not constitute a determination of whether or not a violation actually occurred."
Also specified is how Maloney may have violated a federal statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7353(a), as well as House rules. The statue in question reads that "no Member of Congress . . . shall solicit or accept anything of value from a person— (1) seeking official action from, doing business with, or (in the case of executive branch officers and employees) conducting activities regulated by, the individual’s employing entity; or (2) whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the individual’s official duties."
House Gift Guidance is also mentioned in that it "emphasizes that solicitation of a gift is impermissible."
Potentially even more damning to the outgoing congresswoman is that she believes she has always been invited and never requested an invitation to be able to attend, but that evidence directly contradicts that:
However, a review of documentary evidence and witness testimony contradict Rep. Maloney’s assertion that she was always invited to the Met Gala. Specifically, during the week of March 28, 2016, Rep. Maloney made a phone call to Witness A, a former president of the Met, to request an invitation to the Met Gala after the gala organizers had decided not to invite her to that year’s event. These efforts to gain free attendance may implicate the prohibition on solicitation of gifts under federal law and House rules and render inapplicable any otherwise applicable gift exception for attendance at charitable events.
The Hill's Emily Brooks highlighted a particularly memorable exchange that the 76-year-old Maloney had while giving testimony.
There's "being-invited-to-the-Met-Gala" status and then there's "can't-even-remember-if-I-was-invtied-to-the-Met-Gala-THAT-year" status
— Emily Brooks (@emilybrooksnews) November 21, 2022
Towards the end of the 15-page report, it's explained that "Even if otherwise acceptable under House gift rule exceptions, a gift of free attendance to a charitable event cannot be solicited and the solicitation renders the exception inapplicable. Moreover, federal law and House rules prohibit solicitation of a gift, even if Rep. Maloney never attended the underlying event."
Wu also highlighted a statement from Maloney's attorneys attached to the report. The statement argues that she did not request an invitation and also that "Chairwoman Maloney's attendance clearly falls within specified exceptions to the Gift Rule’s prohibitions."
"Chairwoman Maloney’s attendance at these events was appropriate and complied with all applicable House gift rules, laws, and regulations. In addition, Chairwoman Maloney did not impermissibly solicit an invitation to these events," the statement argues. "The Met is an important institution in her community, and she has had a relationship with it for decades. We respectfully request that this Committee find that Chairwoman Maloney did not accept or solicit any impermissible gifts and that the Committee close its review of this matter."
Wu also mentioned that a spokesperson for Maloney was "confident" the House Ethics Committee would dismiss the investigation and that she was "disappointed" by the "unproven and disputed allegations" in the report.
Maloney was forced to go up against Rep. Nadler, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, to see who would next represent the state's 12th Congressional State. Nadler beat Maloney by over 30 percentage points. New York Democrats have themselves to blame for the chaos that they complained about, after creating gerrymandered maps that were thrown out by the courts for being clearly unconstitutional.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member