In the latest turn of a fascinating saga, it seems Democratic Rep. Cori Bush continues to funnel campaign funds to her husband for private security services, despite notable backlash and two Federal Election Commission complaints lodged against her.
Fresh filings reveal that Courtney Merritts pocketed a cool $17,500 for security services and ‘wage expenses’ during the period from April to June. An interesting tidbit: these records were filed a week after the deadline. Prior to this, between January and March, Merritts reportedly raked in an additional $12,500.
Here’s the kicker: as of February, Merritts did not hold a private security license, a requirement in both the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County. Moreover, his name is conspicuously absent from a database of licensed security professionals in Washington, D.C.
This raises an alarm or two: isn’t it a bit strange to hire unlicensed personnel for such a crucial task?
The storyline thickens when you consider that in March, Bush—who announced her marriage to Merritts in February—faced two complaints. The Committee to Defeat the President alleged that Bush had violated two laws by hiring her husband, accusing her campaign of misusing campaign money for personal expenses and filing a fraudulent report. The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust echoed this sentiment with a complaint of their own.
Further reports indicate that Merritts earned a whopping $62,359 in 2022 for his services to Bush, whose campaign has been noted for its hefty security spending. Since 2020, it has reportedly shelled out over $137,000 to Nathaniel Davis—a man who has allegedly claimed to be 109 trillion years old, possessing the power to summon tornadoes, and espousing anti-Semitic rhetoric.
During the 2022 election cycle, Bush’s campaign spent $225,281 on security through PEACE Security, with the recent filings showing $63,000 going to PEACE this year and $27,500 to Davis.
Yet, Bush remains defiant in the face of criticism over her security spending. She responded to questions in 2021 by saying, “You would rather me die? Is that what you want to see? You want to see me die? You know, because that could be the alternative.”
Her campaign committee, in a similar tone, has defended the payments to Merritts, stating that they were for “bona fide services provided to the campaign, and not for personal use or personal purposes.”
As citizens dedicated to fiscal responsibility and transparency, we must ask: Is it in the spirit of responsible stewardship and ethical governance to channel campaign funds to family members for unlicensed services? This story raises questions about accountability and the appropriate use of campaign funds that deserve to be addressed. After all, shouldn’t our elected representatives exemplify the highest standards of ethical conduct?
