ethics

The House Ethics Committee announced Monday that it is investigating Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles for alleged sexual misconduct.

The committee said it is investigating allegations that Gomez, 51, engaged in “inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer,” according to a statement released by the committee’s chair, Rep. Michael Guest (R-Miss.), and ranking member Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord).

The New York Post reported in April that Gomez, a married five-term congressman, was spotted in 2023 kissing a much younger staffer from another office. CNN reported that the House Ethics Committee later discovered other allegations of sexual misconduct by Gomez.

Gomez acknowledged in a statement Monday that he made “personal mistakes outside my marriage,” but said that his “actions were consensual in nature and haven’t violated the law or House Ethics rules.”

Guest and DeSaulnier said in their statement that the panel’s public acknowledgment of the investigation “does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred.”

Gomez said he is “confident that a full and impartial review of the facts will bear that out” and that he is “ready to cooperate with the Ethics Committee inquiry and provide it with whatever information it might need.”

The committee can take a wide range of actions if it substantiates the allegations in an investigation, including recommending that a member be reprimanded, censured or removed, or referring the conduct to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal investigation.

Gomez represents California’s 34th Congressional District, stretching from Koreatown to Eagle Rock. He faces an election challenge in November from Democrat Angela Gonzales-Torres, who has the backing of the progressive Justice Democrats.

Gomez received 46% of the vote in the June primary, while Gonzales-Torres got 30%.

Gonzales-Torres has been particularly critical of Gomez because of his past support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

Gonzales-Torres blasted Gomez in a statement to The Times after news of the investigation.

“At a time when working families are struggling the most, we need to get creeps out of office,” she said. “We need representatives who will actually focus on fighting for policies like Medicare for All — not people like Rep. Jimmy Gomez and Donald Trump, who are mired in scandal and investigation.”

Gomez was friends with former California Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), who resigned from Congress earlier this year and suspended his campaign for California gubernatorial campaign after being accused of sexual assault by multiple women. Gomez had been a co-chair of Swalwell’s campaign.

The 2023 incident reportedly occurred at a party hosted by Swalwell.

Gomez is married to Mary Hodge, a onetime top aide to former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. The couple have a son whom Gomez wore in a baby carrier during the lengthy House speaker election in 2023. That same year, Gomez founded the Congressional Dads Caucus, which has advocated for expanded child tax credits and other parent-friendly legislation.

Gomez apologized to Hodge in his statement.

“I am deeply sorry to my wife for the pain and embarrassment that I have brought into our lives,” he said. “Her sacrifices and support are central to my ability to serve, and I can only feel gratitude for her grace and strength.”

Benjamin Bycel, a civil rights attorney, law school dean and university president who took on the task of cleaning up Los Angeles politics as the city’s first ethics officer, died Aug. 2 in Santa Barbara. He was 84.

His son, Josh Bycel, said the death was due to complications from Parkinson’s disease.

Born in Brooklyn in 1942, Bycel moved to Huntington Park when he was 5. The son of a boxing manager and a teacher, he spent much of his childhood accompanying his father to downtown boxing gyms and the Olympic Auditorium. After graduating from Huntington Park High School, he earned a master’s in history from San José State University.

Bycel served with the Peace Corps in Uganda, taught at Manual Arts High School in L.A. and reported for the Associated Press in New York. As a law student at UC Davis, he was a press aide for San Francisco Mayor George Moscone’s campaign for governor of California.

After earning his law degree, Bycel worked as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in Sacramento. As a civil rights lawyer in Santa Barbara, he successfully argued a landmark California Supreme Court case, which upheld the right of adults unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption to live together as a family. In 1986, Bycel took on the role of dean for the Santa Barbara and Ventura Colleges of Law, helping steer the ship after the former dean was accused of misappropriating funds.

Five years later, he took on his most high-profile role as founding director of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

The Times called it “a Herculean task.” The commission was created in 1990 after a wave of political corruption scandals engulfed Mayor Tom Bradley’s administration. When the City Council initially declined to pass tough anti-corruption laws, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition H to create an independent watchdog tasked with enforcing a tough new set of regulations governing city officials’ conduct.

“The idea of getting paid to reform the system and make it better is a thrill,” Bycel told The Times when he was selected. He vowed not to “conduct any witch hunts.”

There was controversy from the get-go. In the commission’s first year, The Times reported, investigators raided the offices of City Attorney James K. Hahn after getting a tip that city workers were engaged in political activities. When the district attorney later dropped the investigation, citing lack of evidence, Hahn publicly condemned Bycel.

Zev Yaroslavsky, a former L.A. politician who served then as a City Council member representing district 5, said the new ethics role represented a “dramatic, profound cultural change in municipal government.” Bycel, he said, rose to the occasion.

“Institutionally, he was a new power, a new person with influence over the vitals of elected officialdom, and I thought he did an excellent job,” Yaroslavsky said, noting that Bycel did not go in with guns blazing. “He was very judicious and even-handed and he gave the new institutional credibility out of the starting gate.”

Still, some complained Bycel was a publicity hound, and he made powerful enemies. In 1995, Bycel told The Times that he feared for his job: Mayor Richard Riordan’s new appointee as the ethics commission president, UCLA law lecturer Raquelle de la Rocha, he said, had told him that she had decided he should be fired. De la Rocha denied his claim, but said that she had called a closed personnel hearing on Bycel’s status.

A few weeks later, the commission fired Bycel, taking a vote in closed session. They refused to say why.

“Though outspoken and at times overly aggressive, Bycel has made an important contribution to political reform here in Los Angeles,” The Times said in an editorial. “Under his tenure, the commission staff has worked rigorously to enforce the toughest local ethics laws in the nation, including a gift ban and restrictions on lobbyists.”

Josh Bycel said his father reveled in the challenge of cleaning up L.A. politics and was frustrated by his abrupt ouster.

“Even though he felt he made great progress and they were doing good things, I think he felt that the job was not done … There were forces that did not want him to do the job.”

In 1997, Bycel was appointed president of the University of West Los Angeles, and in 2001 he moved to Washington to serve as the vice president of Common Cause, the national advocacy group. Later, he served as the executive director of the Connecticut Office of State Ethics before moving back to Santa Barbara to practice law.

Bycel died at a memory center in Santa Barbara he had moved into just a few weeks earlier, Josh Bycel said. He was surrounded by his beloved longtime partner, children, grandchildren and dog, he said, in a room filled with photos and quotes of his longtime hero, boxing champion, Muhammad Ali.

“For good or for bad, my dad was a fighter and someone who would speak his mind,” Josh Bycel said, noting that was probably what got him in trouble at the ethics commission. “He always believed that you had to fight the righteous fight.”

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) warned Monday that the sex lives of at least two other lawmakers would be disclosed to the Senate Ethics Committee if the Senate subpoena for nearly five years of his personal diaries is enforced.

Packwood insisted that he is not trying to “blackmail” senators into voting to reject the unanimous demand of the ethics panel, which is conducting an inquiry into charges that Packwood repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances to women on his staff.

Rather, the Oregon lawmaker said, it is the Ethics Committee that wants entries from his diary concerning the longtime affair of another senator and an intimate relationship between a member of the House Democratic leadership and a Senate staff aide.

In his dealings with the committee, Packwood said, he concealed the name of the prominent Democrat by masking it with a piece of paper.

“The Ethics Committee lifted the piece of paper and saw the name and demanded that we produce that page in the diary,” Packwood said. “These were not threats by my lawyer, that if my diary is subpoenaed, that I will tell these things.”

Sources close to Packwood said he fears that some of his diary entries would become public through leaks to the media, even if the committee itself does not disclose them.

The committee said in a report to the Senate last Thursday that Packwood reneged on an agreement to allow a neutral third party to screen the diaries and exclude those parts covered by attorney-client or doctor-patient privileges or related to personal, private family matters.

It voted, 6 to 0, to issue a subpoena for Packwood’s diaries from 1989 to the present, concluding that “the documents in their entirety may be relevant and probative” in connection with its investigation of Packwood’s conduct.

Unless a compromise can be reached, the Senate is expected to vote shortly on whether to back up the Ethics Committee by authorizing it to seek a federal court order for the diaries or to uphold Packwood’s protests that his privacy is being invaded.

Packwood told the Senate that he has kept a personal diary for 25 years that now amounts to 8,200 single-spaced pages. He sets aside time early each morning to dictate his thoughts about events of the previous day, apparently covering both his personal life as well as his official duties.

Entries cover his “hopes and dreams and despair,” the 61-year-old Packwood said, including his discussions with former President Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal, as well as meetings with Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, on tax reform.

In addition, as Packwood’s attorney James F. Fitzpatrick said in a statement Friday, the diary also has information on the senator’s “private consensual personal relationships” with women who were not on his staff.

Senate records disclosed that Packwood has raised more than $280,000 for a legal defense fund since the Ethics Committee started its inquiry early this year, including a $10,000 donation from Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) and a $1,000 contribution from Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.).

Lobbyists and other major campaign contributors have put up most of the money.

Packwood, accused by more than two dozen women of sexual harassment over the last two decades, also has been charged with using his Senate staff to try to silence his accusers by intimidation.

Ethics experts sounded the alarm Wednesday after new financial disclosure reports revealed that President Trump’s income ballooned to $2.2 billion in 2025, with $1.4 billion coming from various new cryptocurrency-related businesses.

“It’s bribery. It’s graft. It’s exploitation of public power for private financial gain,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and an expert in government ethics. “Trump has — with the acquiescence of a somnolent, GOP-controlled Congress and the active assistance of John Roberts’ Supreme Court — transformed the presidency into a massive corruption racket.”

Trump reported income of over $600 million in 2024. But after he entered the White House in 2025, he reported that his income had soared to more than $2.2 billion.

The 2025 annual disclosure report filed with the Office of Government Ethics shows that Trump ramped up his real estate business in countries across the globe, particularly in the Middle East, at a time when his government was negotiating over vital issues of military aid and economic tariffs. The president also expanded his dealings in the relatively new realm of cryptocurrency.

According to the 927-page report, Trump made $635 million in royalties from Celebration Coins and more than $500 million from his World Liberty Financial crypto firm. He drew in millions from a raft of Trump-branded merchandise including God Bless the USA Bibles and sneakers depicting him with his hand raised in a fist. He also brought in $10.4 million from a property in the United Arab Emirates and $9 million from a property in Saudi Arabia.

Noah Bookbinder, an ethics expert and former president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a nonprofit watchdog group in Washington, described Trump’s business dealings while in the White House as “entirely unprecedented, certainly in modern history, but I think by most ways of measuring, in all of American history.”

“This is corruption,” Bookbinder said. “You have a president who has been quite transparently using the presidency in ways that benefit his business interests and intertwining the presidency and business interests.”

But the president and the White House brushed aside ethics concerns about the money Trump is making.

Trump told reporters Wednesday that he made a lot of money before he came to the White House, he had “big institutions” run his money, and that he had benefited, like every other American, as the stock market went up.

“We’re all profiting,” he said. “I’m profiting because I have a lot of money and a lot of cash.”

In a statement, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: “Neither the President nor his family has ever engaged — or will ever engage — in conflicts of interest. … All actions by President Trump and his administration are taken in the best interest of the American people.”

Although the report does not show exactly how much Trump is earning — it provides details of revenue, rather than profit — the scale of the president’s cryptocurrency dealings elevated ethics watchdogs’ long-standing concerns.

Jordan Libowitz, a vice president at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, said the most concerning detail of the new report is the hundreds of millions of dollars coming in from various crypto ventures partnered with companies that the American public knows little about.

“At a time when his own administration itself is setting regulation for these types of companies,” Libowitz said, “there’s just this massive opportunity for corruption when foreign governments and foreign nationals can pour tens of millions of dollars into the president’s pocket.”

As a real estate mogul, Trump has long invested in hotels, condominiums and golf courses. But cryptocurrency, Libowitz said, offers vastly more potential for corruption.

“There’s only so many hotel rooms you can book, so many rounds of golf, but there’s no limit with crypto,” Libowitz said. “You can just buy his meme coin and he gets a cut, so you kind of take out the middleman, but also the cap or the amount of money you can funnel to the president.”

Libowitz said it was also problematic for Trump to expand his real estate empire in foreign countries, particularly the Middle East.

“Now it seems that almost all his new developments are in foreign countries, and that opens up, if you’re building this giant resort, you’re going to need help from the local government, whether it’s tax breaks or utility issues, or building a road, or speeding up permits,” Libowitz said. “These are ways that foreign governments can do favors for the American president.”

In the half a century before Trump was elected, ethics experts say, presidents from Nixon to Obama publicly released their tax returns, sold properties or put the proceeds in a blind trust managed by someone they did not know.

“They weren’t doing it because they legally had to, but because they thought it was the right thing to do,” Libowitz said.

Ever since Trump was first elected in 2016 and opted to not sell his businesses or put them in blind trusts, ethics experts have urged Congress to impose more aggressive financial oversight over money in politics.

“Congress needs to update the law, and basically, mandate blind trusts and sale of assets and disclosure of tax returns,” Libowitz said.

Noting that the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause explicitly states that the president cannot accept things of value from foreign or domestic governments, ethics experts say Trump is flouting the law and Congress has chosen to not enforce it.

Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said Congress needed to close loopholes that exempt presidents from federal conflict of interest laws as well as enforce the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

“Nobody holding a position of trust with the United States government can accept emoluments, profits and benefits from foreign governments, and that is flatly prohibited under the United States Constitution,” Painter said. “Now, if the United Arab Emirates put money into Liberty Financial, as I understand they did … and then Trump makes money off Liberty Financial, that’s a Foreign Emoluments Clause problem.”

Congress, he said, should empower an independent prosecutor to investigate such conflicts.

“The problem with the Foreign Emoluments Clause is how do we enforce it?” Painter said. “The founders and head of the Congress enforced it by impeaching anybody who took a bunch of foreign government money, but I guess that system’s not working. That’s a serious problem.”

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg and David Zahniser, with an assist from Melissa Gomez and Connor Sheets, giving you the latest on city and county government.

The city of Los Angeles will shell out $120,000 for outside lawyers to fight a lawsuit filed by a councilmember challenging an ethics fine.

On Wednesday, the City Council voted unanimously to hire the law firm Hecker Fink LLP to represent the city’s Ethics Commission as it defends its decision to fine Councilmember John Lee $138,000 for allegedly violating city gift laws during a notorious 2017 trip to Las Vegas. Lee recused himself from the vote.

The city attorney’s office has said it can’t represent the Ethics Commission in Lee’s lawsuit because of a conflict of interest.

Lee was chief of staff to then-Councilmember Mitchell Englander when the two were plied with meals and alcohol, as well as hotel stays and gambling chips, by people seeking business with the city.

Lee, who represents the northwest San Fernando Valley, has claimed that he made a good faith effort to pay his own way. At a nearly $2,500 dinner that included Kobe beef, Maine lobster, Peking duck and sea bass, the only thing he ate was a spoonful of bird’s nest soup, he said at a hearing in his ethics case.

In 2020, Englander pleaded guilty to a single count of providing false information to the FBI and was sentenced to 14 months in prison. Three years later, he agreed to pay $79,830 to settle an Ethics Commission case focused on his own gift law violations.

The commission levied the fine against Lee in December, finding that he committed two counts of violating the city’s law against accepting gifts above a certain value, three counts of violating a law requiring that such gifts be disclosed to the public and five counts of misusing his city position.

David Tristan, the Ethics Commission’s executive director, had asked the council to provide at least $120,000 to defend against Lee’s lawsuit.

Lee declined to comment on the vote. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the statute of limitations had expired on the matters that were investigated by the Ethics Commission. He also accused the commission of overvaluing the share of gifts he partook in.

Lee is seeking to get the fine overturned.

More churn in the Karen Bass campaign

Turns out the shakeup in Mayor Karen Bass’ campaign did not end with the departure of Douglas Herman, her top strategist.

Herman told The Times on Wednesday that he stepped down due to “strategic differences” over the Nov. 3 runoff campaign against City Councilmember Nithya Raman. Bass’ team said on the same day that they had replaced him with Julie Chávez Rodriguez, who was campaign manager for the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris presidential campaigns in 2024.

A day later, political consultant Larry Grisolano confirmed that he too is no longer with the Bass reelection effort. His company, Thematic Campaigns, had been providing media and digital strategy.

On Friday, Berkeley-based research consultant Mike Rice told The Times that his firm, VR Research, had also left the Bass campaign, effective Wednesday. He declined to comment further.

Bass campaign spokesperson Alex Stack declined to discuss the departures. Asked if the campaign is in disarray, he said no, adding that Chávez Rodriguez’s hiring “is a really big get for us.”

“We’re getting a lot of positive feedback,” Stack said.

Still waiting on eviction defense contracts

In March, it appeared that a battle between City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto and the nonprofit running L.A.’s eviction defense program was over.

At the time, Feldstein Soto said she had concerns over awarding funds to the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, which has sued the city successfully over homelessness issues on multiple occasions. Feldstein Soto argued that contracts should not be awarded without rigorous reports and invoice review from Legal Aid and other nonprofits.

The City Council awarded the contracts anyway, funding the initial portion of a three-year, $177-million deal for Legal Aid and three other nonprofits to provide eviction defense, short-term rental assistance, tenant outreach and more as part of the city’s Stay Housed L.A. program.

But months later, Feldstein Soto’s office still hasn’t executed the contracts, frustrating tenants rights advocates and the nonprofits, which are struggling to pay their staff without the funds from the city.

“We’ve been really in a state of purgatory for over a year,” said Mike Dennis, senior director of housing justice at the Liberty Hill Foundation, which does tenant outreach as part of the city’s program.

Dennis said the failure to execute the contracts has created planning and operational uncertainty for the community-based organizations that Liberty Hill works with. Soon, some of them may face serious issues.

“We’re quickly approaching a point where the organizations are not going to keep being able to pay staff and absorb those costs,” he said. “The longer this goes on, the more likely we are to see contractions in the work.”

Earlier this month, Councilmember Ysabel Jurado put forward a motion asking the city attorney to explain why the contracts have not been executed. Jurado said the delay has left $17 million in funds unused.

“At the same time, the selected contractors struggle to maintain staffing without this funding, placing services for those at risk of homelessness in jeopardy,” she wrote in the June 2 motion.

Feldstein Soto argued in a June 15 response that Legal Aid has failed to agree to the “accountability and reporting requirements” needed to execute the contracts. She said those requirements were designed to make sure that taxpayer funds are spent properly.

“This office will continue to work with proposed contractors until the concerns are sufficiently addressed,” she said in a statement.

State of play

— UNHAPPY MEMORIES: Bass was out of town when the Boyle Heights warehouse fire erupted, which is giving voters a fresh reminder of her absence at the start of the Palisades fire. The situation could have an impact on her reelection campaign against Raman.

— HEADING TO THE BALLOT: A half-cent sales tax hike that would generate $345 million annually for the Los Angeles Fire Department will go before voters in the Nov. 3 election. The measure has been spearheaded by the city’s firefighter union, which gathered the signatures to qualify it for the ballot.

— D.A. DENIED: A judge has rejected Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman’s request to freeze payments in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The ruling boots Hochman from his brief stint in a civil courtroom as he moves forward with his criminal investigation into lawyers, recruiters and medical practitioners who may have submitted fraudulent claims.

— SOCIALIST SURGE: L.A.’s democratic socialists are looking to expand their power at City Hall yet again, setting their sights on the races for mayor and city attorney. Raman and city attorney hopeful Marissa Roy, both members of the L.A. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, are heading into the runoff after strong showings in the June 2 primary. (DSA-LA endorsed Roy but not Raman in the primary.)

— A BLOWOUT ELECTION: Property owners across the city voted overwhelmingly against increasing the assessment they pay to maintain streetlights. City leaders had hoped to use the funds — an additional $80 million a year — to speed up repairs and upgrade the city’s 225,000 streetlights.

— CLEARING THE LAND: Overgrown lots razed by the Eaton and Palisades fires pose an increasing wildfire threat to surrounding properties. The county Board of Supervisors recently passed a motion calling on county departments to develop a plan to clear vegetation in Altadena and Sunset Mesa.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelessness went to the area around the Wiltern Theatre in Koreatown this week. The area is represented by Councilmember Heather Hutt.
• On the docket next week: On Tuesday, the council takes up a package of ballot measures that would rewrite the City Charter. The changes cover topics such as voting rights for noncitizens, expanded park funding and City Council oversight of policies at the Los Angeles Police Department.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.