August 29, 2022

Chairman Mike Barnes and Co-Chairman Paul Vinovich

Office of Congressional Ethics
U.S. House of Representatives
425 3rd St. SW
Suite 1110
Washington, D.C. 20024

RE: Possible ethics violations by Rep. Matt Cartwright

Dear Chairman Barnes and Co-Chairman Vinovich:

The Functional Government Initiative (FGI) is an organization dedicated to improving the American
public’s awareness about the officials, decisions, and priorities of their government. We do this through
investigative research, analysis, and education.

We have become aware of conduct that appears to be a violation of the House Ethics Rules by
Representative Matt Cartwright (PA-8) resulting from his use of official House resources to promote the
business interests of a law firm in which one of his largest campaign donors is a named partner. For the
reasons discussed below, this matter clearly deserves an investigation by the Office of Congressional
Ethics.

Factual Background

Rep. Cartwright introduced the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022, and the bill was included in a larger
bill enacted on August 10, 2022. It provides for a potential cause of action to certain individuals who
were exposed to toxic water between August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1987. As any viewer of
television in the past two weeks can attest, the new law has generated a frenzy of commercial advertising
by the personal injury law firms trying to reach a vast pool of potentially affected individuals.

Jerry Parker is a lawyer and a named partner in the law firm Parker|Waichman LLP.1 His firm’s practice
includes toxic tort litigation, and his firm’s website features its work on cases involving injuries alleged to
have been caused by contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.2 A search at FEC.gov shows that Mr. Parker
and his wife appear to have made the maximum allowable campaign contributions to Rep. Cartwright
across multiple election cycles.3

To attract possible clients, Mr. Parker’s firm, like many others, highlighted its ability to work on Camp
Lejeune matters on its web page and in television advertising. However, unlike other firms, Mr. Parker’s

1
Parker Waichman LLP - National Personal Injury Law Firm (yourlawyer.com).
2
Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Lawsuit - Parker Waichman LLP (yourlawyer.com)
3
See Browse Individual contributions | FEC.
firm also used portions of a video featuring Rep. Cartwright.4 In the video, Rep. Cartwright is seated in
what clearly appears to be his House office, wearing his official House pin, and speaking from behind a
caption reading “Matt Cartwright United States Congressman.” The video is highly laudatory of both Mr.
Parker and his firm as evidenced by the following statements:

“Jerry Parker introduced me to this whole problem for the Marines that they are not able to have
their day in court for being poisoned by the well water at Camp Lejeune.”

“When Jerry Parker alerted me to this, I dove right in…. I owe Jerry Parker a great debt of
gratitude…. I’m happy that he is going to have a hand in bringing these cases to justice.”

“I’m so glad I got to know Jerry Parker and the effort, we’re very much kindred spirits….”

“It is just the start…. Folks like Jerry Parker and Parker|Waichman, they are at the point now
where they really have to roll up their sleeves and take these cases in front of the court and win
them.”

Mr. Parker is also shown in the Congressmen’s office and speaking with him. The attention conferred on
Mr. Parker and his firm by the video, as well as the notoriety garnered from the ensuing fallout over it,
may simply be good for his business. However, these benefits for the lawyer come at a cost to the public
through Rep. Cartwright’s unethical use of symbols and resources of the House.

Ethics Provisions

Ensuring public trust of our elected officials has long been a guiding principle of government. To uphold
this trust, Congress has bound itself to standards of conduct, including those expressed in the “Code of
Official Conduct,” set forth in Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Obligations
under the Code of Official Conduct are further explicated in the “House Manual of Ethics.”
Rep. Cartwright may have violated his ethics obligations in at least two ways: by indicating his
endorsement as a Member of Congress for Mr. Parker and his firm and by allowing House resources to be
used for the benefit of an outside business.
A. Unethical use of expressions and symbols to indicate sponsorship or endorsement

House Ethics Rule XXIII, clause 11 provides that

A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not authorize or otherwise allow an

individual, group, or organization not under the direction and control of the House to use the
words ‘‘Congress of the United States,’’ ‘‘House of Representatives,’’ or ‘‘Official Business,’’ or
any combination of words thereof, on any letterhead or envelope.

In elaborating on Rule XXIII, the Ethics Manual explains that

“Members of Congress communicate with the public in various capacities…. such

communications should not carry expressions or symbols that might improperly indicate official
sponsorship or endorsement….”

4
See cartwright parker waichman clips - YouTube.
 “[Rule XXIII] encompasses reproduction of an official communication in another publication, as
well as direct use of official-appearing documents. Even if the specific words mentioned in the
rule are not used, authorizing a non-House individual or group to use letterhead, expressions, or
symbols conveying the impression of an official communication from the Congress would violate
the spirit of House rules as well as other statutory provisions….” (Ethics Manual at 346-347)

In the video, portions of which appeared both on Mr. Parker’s firm’s website and in television
commercials, Congressman Cartwright’s House of Representatives pin, a clear symbol of the House, was
clearly visible in close ups. The video could be viewed an endorsement by the House of Mr. Parker and
his firm in bringing legal action under the legislation that Rep. Cartwright introduced. Even more blatant,
exemplified by the quotes from the video mentioned above, is Rep. Cartwright’s providing an
unequivocal endorsement of Mr. Parker’s role in spurring him to draft the bill and then identifying Mr.
Parker and his firm as being in a position to take cases under the Act to court and win them. A clearer
“sponsorship or endorsement” of a business by a member of Congress is hard to imagine.

B. Unethical use of House resources

The Ethics Manual explains that there is a prohibition against use of House resources to support unofficial
undertakings and that this prohibition clearly applies to support of business endeavors.5 Additionally,
conducting nongovernmental activities in offices of the House of Representatives is generally prohibited.6

As noted above, it is apparent that the Congressman was in his House office when the video was prepared
and that he and Mr. Parker were recorded together in the same office. This use of House resources
appears to be a direct violation of the Congressman’s ethical obligations.

C. Failure to act in a manner that reflects creditably on the House

In addition to the ethics violations discussed above, Rule XXIII, cl. 1 of the Rules of Conduct also
requires a Member to “behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.” FGI
certainly does not quarrel with an effort to compensate injured veterans and others that is the foundation
of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. Our complaint remains with the video of the Congressman, which
seems tailormade to lend the stature of his official role in introducing the bill, to the benefit of a key
donor and his law firm. The Congressmen’s actions in this regard do not “reflect creditably” on the
House; to the contrary, they suggest the type of favoritism for political insiders that average Americans
see as so harmful to our democracy.

D. Failure to adhere to the spirit of the Rules of Conduct

Rule XXIII, clause 2 requires that a Member of the House “shall adhere to the spirit and letter of the
Rules of the House….” Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Congressman’s actions do not
violate the letter of the House Rules (they appear to do so), there can be no doubt that they violate the
spirit of the House Rules. The Ethics Manual provides the following:

The practical effect of Clause 2 of the Code has been to provide a device for construing other
provisions of the Code and House rules. It has been interpreted to mean that Members . . . may
not do indirectly what they would be barred from doing directly. Individuals should thus read

5
Manual at 350. See also, Manual at 345 (Official House resources are required to be expended for official business
of the House, and not for the business of any other entity, public or private). (Emphasis in original).
6
See, Ethics Manual at 349.
 House rules broadly. The Select Committee on Ethics of the 95th Congress cited this provision to
show that a narrow technical reading of a House rule should not overcome its “spirit” and the
intent of the House in adopting that and other rules of conduct. (Ethics Manual at 17)

In this instance, the Congressman recorded a video in his office extolling a campaign donor and his law
firm in connection with a new and potentially lucrative area of the law that is closely associated with the
Congressman. Mr. Parker reportedly provided a written apology to the Congressman that indicated that
the video had been made on July 26, 2022, and that it had been “an overreach” to have used the video on
the firm’s website and television advertising. Even with that apology, it is unclear why such a video was
made in the first place. The video could hardly have been more useful to the donor as delivered and
recorded. After the video was published on the law firm’s website and used in television advertising by
the firm, Rep. Cartwright sent a short cease and desist letter to Mr. Parker on August 9, 2022. The
ensuing controversy has only heighted the law firm’s visibility in this burgeoning area of the law and its
connections to the Rep. Cartwright. The effect of the video in benefiting the donor, whether directly or
indirectly, is unmistakable.

Conclusion

Considering the foregoing, the Functional Government Initiative asks the Office of Congressional Ethics
to open an investigation into this matter promptly to determine if violations occurred, which seem clear
from our review of the situation.

Sincerely,

Chris Stanley
Director
Functional Government Initiative
6218 Georgia Avenue NW, Ste 1 - 1235
Washington, DC 20011-5125
chris@functionalgovernment.org