U.S. House committee resolves complaint against John James, says no official funds used for campaign

The U.S. House Communications Standards Commission on Wednesday dismissed a complaint against U.S. Rep. John James, a 2026 gubernatorial candidate, which alleged he misused official funds for campaign purposes. 

The decision, signed by both the commission’s chair, Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Carey, and the ranking member, New York Democratic Rep. Joe Morelle, states that there was “no reasonable justification” for the complaint against the Shelby Township Republican.

The complaint made two main allegations — that YouTube ads coming from James’ office were pushed to viewers outside his congressional district, and that the ads contained campaign messaging and political content. 

The bipartisan decision from the commission, which is a part of the Committee on House Administration, determined that the materials submitted in the complaint and those submitted by James’ office in response demonstrated that the use of official funds was appropriate in these cases. The letter from Carey and Morelle stated that the matter is now closed. 

Whistleblower complaint claims John James allegedly used official funds for campaign communications

Screenshots attached to the initial complaint, which was filed on May 27 by Carl Berry, the former longtime police chief in Plymouth, show Google’s advertising database listing an ad for James that ran in the entire Detroit Designated Market Area. It also showed a listing for the same ad that was geographically limited to the 10th Congressional District, which James represents. James’ full district is encompassed in that area, but it also includes other areas outside his district.

The ads in question ran between May 18 and June 4. As of June 2, the ads that had previously been shown to be running in the full Detroit Designated Market Area had been limited to the 10th Congressional District. 

“Our policy is that paid Congressional communications are targeted to communicating with the district in full compliance with all franking rules,” a spokesperson for James’ office told the Michigan Advance when the initial complaint was filed. “When the vendor here learned that their targeting on a YouTube video was incorrect, they didn’t bill for it so no taxpayer funds were used.”

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are allowed to use taxpayer funds to send out communications within their district in a practice known as franking. Since fiscal year 1999, members have been able to use any portion of their official budget for these official communications.

The House of Representatives Communication Standards Manual states that “Unsolicited mass communications must serve the district in which the Member represents, and to the greatest extent possible, shall not be targeted outside of the Member’s district,” and that for communications that are not sent to specific mailing addresses, like online ads, “best efforts must be made to ensure the communication is distributed to as few individuals outside the district as possible.”

James’ office referred to the Communications Standards Commission’s letter for a statement on the final decision.