Staff Reports
A new sworn ethics complaint has been published that accuses Representative Lauren Boebert of sexual relationships with three staffers and of arranging a roughly $200,000 payment to one of them. The complaint was posted by American Muckrakers and comes with redacted exhibits that the author says include payroll records, bank traces and FEC filings. Representative Boebert and at least one named staffer have issued categorical denials, and the whole affair smells like a mix of raw politics and the modern media feeding frenzy.
What the ethics complaint alleges
The filing names three staffers — Clarice Navarro Ratzlaff, Raven Finegan, and Jeffrey D. Small — and accuses Representative Boebert of sexual relationships with all three while they worked under her supervision. The complaint also alleges misuse of campaign funds and official payments, including a small “consulting” payment and an approximately $200,000 transfer that the complainant says was made to head off a threatened complaint. If any of that checks out, it would be a clear violation of the House Code of Official Conduct that bars lawmakers from sexual relationships with supervised staff, and it could trigger referrals to the FEC or DOJ.
Denials, sources, and why credibility matters
BoEbert’s office called the filing “utterly false” and “a politically motivated stunt,” and Representative Boebert herself has denied any inappropriate relationships. Clarice Navarro Ratzlaff also denied the allegations as “entirely false” and defamatory. The complainant, however, published a redacted complaint with exhibits and insists the documentary evidence exists. Readers should note American Muckrakers has an adversarial history with Representative Boebert, which raises the obvious question: is this accountability reporting or revenge journalism dressed up as a legal filing? That matters — a sworn complaint with paper exhibits deserves to be verified, not automatically accepted as gospel.
The procedural wrinkle that changes the game
Here’s the part liberals and headline hunters will happily ignore: House ethics rules instruct the Committee on Ethics to return complaints filed within the 60‑day window before an election when the subject is a candidate. The complaint was filed inside that pre‑election period, which means the Committee could decline to accept it on procedural grounds. In plain English, that timing looks a lot like a quick‑hit political strike meant to influence voters, and the Committee must be strict about applying its own rules — either investigate on the merits or return the complaint and call out the timing for what it is.
Bottom line — demand evidence, not theater
Conservatives should oppose bad actors and protect due process. If the evidence in the exhibit bundle truly ties campaign or office funds to hush payments, the Ethics Committee and law enforcement should act — no one gets a pass. But we should also be wary of activists weaponizing ethics filings in the runup to an election. The Committee must state whether it will accept the complaint, and journalists should independently verify the payroll, FEC and bank records cited before assuming guilt. Until that work is done, skip the partisan drumbeat and demand facts — or, failing facts, at least admit this was a piece of political theater aimed at headlines and clicks. If nothing else, it proves that in modern politics the theater crew is sometimes better funded than the stage actors.
