1090 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 750

SANDLER REIFF Washington, DC 20005

SANDLER REIFF LAMB www.sandlerreiff.com
ROSENSTEIN & BIRKENSTOCK, P.C. T: 202-479-1111
F: 202-479-1115

September 1, 2023

Mr. Dan Backer, Esq.

Counsel to Committee to Defeat the President

By email to dbacker@chalmersadams.com

Mr. Backer:

My name is David Mitrani, I am counsel to Cori Bush for Congress, and to

Congresswoman Cori Bush. I am writing regarding complaints that you, on behalf of your client
the Committee to Defeat the President, have filed with multiple government agencies regarding
the campaign’s retention of the security services of Mr. Cortney Merritts, the Congresswoman’s
husband.

As described in this letter, the Committee to Defeat the President’s complaints (with
yourself as their signer) make multiple statements that are demonstrably false.1 You and your
client are now on notice that these statements are demonstrably false, for reasons described in
this letter. Mr. Merritt’s services provided to Cori Bush for Congress are bona fide, and are at or
below fair market value. The services he provides do not require licensure in the District of
Columbia nor in St. Louis.2

We demand that you retract the complaints you have filed that are demonstrably false.
Failure to do so – or continued repetition of these false statements with knowledge that they are
false and without merit may result in liability for your client. In addition, we believe that the
continued assertion by you of these claims with absolutely no basis whatsoever in law or in fact
that is not frivolous, could well constitute a violation of Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct of the District of Columbia Bar.

As a matter of professional responsibility – and comity between members of the legal

profession – I hope that you will consider the content of this letter and retract complaints made
that are clearly without merit.

1
See “Cori Bush complaints from the Committee to Defeat the President” (August 21, 2023) at
https://www.scribd.com/document/668154546/Cori-Bush-complaints-from-the-Committee-to-Defeat-the-
President# (last accessed August 31, 2023).
2
This letter does not specifically respond to each of the accusations made in the Committee’s complaints,
given their lack of merit, or overall absurdity.

1
 1. Mr. Merritt’s services provided are bona fide, and at fair market value.

Security threats against the Congresswoman are unfortunately frequent, and often include
threats against her life, which have necessitated that the campaign protect their most important
asset: the life of the candidate. Threats against the Congresswoman have been widely reported.3

To combat these threats against the Congresswoman’s life, the campaign compensates
individuals and vendors to protect the Congresswoman. Cori Bush for Congress’ payments to
Mr. Merritts are for bona fide services, directly related to work provided to the campaign. Mr.
Merritts has a long history working in the precise field where he has provided services to the
campaign: security services.

a. Mr. Merritts’ experience is clearly applicable to his role, which he provides at

or below the fair market value.

As Security Supervisor, Mr. Merritts is responsible for managing and providing security
and protection for the Congresswoman, and is responsible for developing and implementing
security plans and procedures. Mr. Merritts conducts security assessments of venues across the
country, residences, and transportation routes, manages other security personnel, and coordinates
their schedule and activities to ensure efficient and effective security coverage. In addition, he is
responsible for monitoring and assessing potential threats, and taking defensive measures as
needed. Mr. Merritts does not provide personal security services in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Merritts’ experience closely matches the services that he provides to the campaign:
service in the United States Army (including protection of high-ranking officials), security
services provided to casinos in Missouri, as well as services for a statewide energy company in
the state (where he had around 80 direct reports).

Mr. Merritts has had extensive experience in the logistical security services that he
provides to the campaign, and is paid the same as the other contractor providing fewer security
services than Mr. Merritts is (and less than other commercial vendors).4 While Mr. Merritts
being paid the same amount that other security contractors of the campaign have been paid is in
and of itself a demonstration of fair market value, he is also paid less than other contractors have.

3
See, e,g.: NBC News, “Congressional campaigns spent $7.5 million on security for 2022” (February 3,
2023) at https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/congressional-campaigns-spent-75-
million-security-2022-rcna68829; Axios “How much members of Congress are spending on personal
security” (February 16, 2022) (“Tempers are flaring amid intense political polarization, and lawmakers
are enduring huge numbers of threats as a result. The spending is just the latest index for the concern.”) at
https://www.axios.com/2022/02/16/congress-spending-personal-security (last accessed August 31, 2023).
4
In MUR 6510 (Kirk for Senate), the Commission dismissed a complaint when the respondents
“submitted sworn and notarized responses attesting to [the candidate’s family member’s] credentials and
work for the committee”. FEC MUR 6510, First General Counsel’s Report (March 8, 2013), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6510/13044341743.pdf, Certification (FEC dismissed 4-0) (July 12,
2013) at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6510/13044341763.pdf (last accessed August 31, 2023).

2
 As you are well aware, salary payments to a member of the candidate’s family are
permissible, if they are bona fide, and are the “fair market value of the services provided.”5 The
FEC has dismissed multiple cases regarding that match the arrangement between the campaign
and Mr. Merritts – where bona fide services have been provided at the fair market value – finding
no violation had occurred.6

5
11 C.F.R. § 113.1(g)(1)(i)(H). (“Personal use” includes “Salary payments to a member of the
candidate's family, unless the family member is providing bona fide services to the campaign. If a family
member provides bona fide services to the campaign, any salary payment in excess of the fair market
value of the services provided is personal use”).
6
See FEC Advisory Opinion 2001-10 (Jackson), at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2001-10/2001-
10.pdf see also FEC Advisory Opinion 1992-04 (Cortese) (candidate can hire wife for services rendered),
at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/1992-04/1992-04.pdf; FEC MURs:

• 7639 (Ilhan for Congress) (complaint filed for candidate paying spouse’s firm for services, FEC
dismissed 6-0), First General Counsel’s Report (May 8, 2020), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7639/7639_16.pdf; Certification (December 8, 2021), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7639/7639_18.pdf;

• 6790 (Coakley) (Complaint filed for candidate paying sister for compliance services, FEC
dismissed 6-0), First General Counsel’s Report (October 17, 2014), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6790/15044370576.pdf; Certification (December 12, 2014)
at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6790/15044370585.pdf;

• 6631 (Berman) (Complaint filed for candidate paying their brother for consulting services,
brother was a “well-known and highly regarded” consultant, and worked for many different
clients, FEC dismissed with only one Commissioner voting to find a potential violation), First
General Counsel’s Report (March 5, 2013), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6631/13044332940.pdf; Certification (May 13, 2013), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6631/13044332951.pdf;

• 6864 (Ruiz) (Complaint filed when candidate hired wife as campaign manager, FEC dismissed 6-
0), First General Counsel’s Report (January 22, 2015), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6864/15044373536.pdf; Certification (May 21, 2015), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6864/15044373544.pdf;

• 6510 (Kirk for Senate), First General Counsel’s Report (March 8, 2013), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6510/13044341743.pdf, Certification (FEC dismissed 4-0)
(July 12, 2013) at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6510/13044341763.pdf;

See also FEC MUR 5701 (Candidate paying wife’s consulting company was not prohibited, as the firm
was duly licensed and formed, provided examples of the vendor's work product and a written bid from a
competing fundraising firm, FEC voted 5-0 to dismiss), First General Counsel’s Report (July 10, 2006), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/5701/000056FF.pdf; Certification (July 13, 2006), at
https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/5701/00005700.pdf (last accessed August 31, 2023).

3
 Accordingly, to the extent based on allegations that the payments are not bona fide
payments at market rates for services actually rendered, the complaints you have filed with the
Federal Election Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Congressional Ethics
are absolutely baseless.

b. Licenses are not required for Mr. Merritts’ services.

As described above, Mr. Merritts does not provide personal security services in the
District of Columbia, and solely works on scheduling and logistics based on his scope of work.7
St. Louis City’s and County’s ordinances solely require licensure for protection of property in a
designated area.8

Accordingly, to the extent based on the licensure issue, the complaints filed with the DC
Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police
Department are absolutely baseless.

2. The statements in the complaints are demonstrably and unequivocally false.

The administrative process should be used for legitimate questions of law: you raised one
by filing a complaint with the proper administrative bodies, the Federal Election Commission,
and the Office of Congressional Ethics. We responded accordingly, to lay out facts and legal
justification for the campaign’s actions as we have in this letter.

That should have been the end of the matter – “throwing the kitchen sink” at the
campaign and at the Congresswoman by filing claims that are not only factually and legally
baseless but are outside the jurisdiction of the agencies with which you filed, constitutes an abuse
of the legal process.9

7
See D.C. Code § 47-2839.01(a)(2) (“security agency”), (a)(4) (“security services” are “to protect an
individual or property”).
8
St. Louis City’s and County’s ordinances solely require licensure for protection of property in a
designated area. See City of St. Louis, Missouri, Metropolitan Police Department, “Personal Security”,
available at https://www.slmpd.org/private_security.shtml; St. Louis County Police Department,
“Professional Licensing Rules and Procedures” at 5 (defining “security officer” as “a person employed
with certain powers to protect life and property on/in a designated area” available at
https://stlouiscountypolice.com/sites/stlcopolice/assets/pdfs/Police/Other/Professional%20Licensing%20
Manual.pdf (last accessed August 31, 2023).
9
A news article written about these additional complaints is further evidence of this. Fox News, “'Squad'
Rep. Cori Bush faces increased pressure over campaign payments to husband for security services”
(August 30, 2023) at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cori-bush-faces-increased-pressure-campaign-
payments-husband-security-services (last accessed August 31, 2023).

4
 Accordingly – the campaign and the Congresswoman demand that you retract the
complaints filed with:

1. The US Department of Justice;

2. The DC Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection; and

3. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.

Please advise us by close of business Tuesday, September 5th, whether the Committee to
Defeat the President will agree to the steps demanded above.

To the extent that the Committee to Defeat the President or its agents continue to repeat
these false statements with knowledge that they are false, the campaign and the Congresswoman
may have no choice but to seek further relief. Please be advised that nothing in this
communication, or any other, is intended to operate as a waiver or release of any claims, actions
or defenses to which the campaign or the Congresswoman may be entitled. These claims,
actions, and defenses are expressly preserved.

Thank you for your time and immediate attention to this urgent matter. If you have any
questions or need further information concerning the above, please contact me at
mitrani@sandlerreiff.com.

Sincerely,

David Mitrani

Counsel for Congresswoman Cori Bush;

Cori Bush for Congress, Amy Vilela, Treasurer