__________________________________________ REPORT OF

THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRY

INTO THE MATTER OF

SENATOR JOHN E. ENSIGN

__________________________________________ SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

BY

CAROL ELDER BRUCE, SPECIAL COUNSEL

MAY 10, 2011
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................... 1

A. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

B. Summary of Findings.............................................................................................. 3

C. The Special Counsel Recommends Referrals to the Department of Justice 

and the Federal Election Commission..................................................................... 7

II. FINDINGS OF FACT............................................................................................................. 7

A. Factual Background ................................................................................................ 7

B. Senator Ensign s Affair with Cynthia Hampton ................................................... 10

1. Mr. Hampton s Discovery of the Affair.................................................... 12

2. Mr. Hampton Seeks Assistance to End the Affair and an 

Intervention Is Held ............................................................................... 13

3. The Affair Continues until July 2008........................................................ 14

C. Senator Ensign Plans for Transition Finances for Mr. Hampton....................... 15

D. Senator Ensign Arranges a Consulting Firm Position for Doug Hampton 

After Terminating Mr. Hampton........................................................................... 16

E. The Senator Has Extensive Discussions with Doug Hampton about 

Severance Payments.............................................................................................. 17

F. The Senator s Father Makes a Payment of $96,000 from the Ensign

Family Trust to the Hamptons............................................................................... 19

G. Mr. Hampton Receives Excessive Unused Vacation Pay..................................... 20

H. Senator Ensign Takes Action Surrounding Mr. Hampton s Post- Employment Lobbying.......................................................................................... 21

1. Senator Ensign Takes Steps to Reduce Records Retention, 

Communicate Off of the Senate Server, and Minimize 

Contacts with the Ethics Committee ......................................................... 21

2. Senator Ensign Takes Efforts to Persuade and Compel 

Constituents to Hire Mr. Hampton............................................................ 22

I. Mr. Hampton Departs and Immediately Lobbies Senator Ensign s Staff............. 23

J. Senator Ensign and John Lopez Agree to Channel Mr. Hampton s

Lobbying Contacts Through Mr. Lopez................................................................ 27

1. Senator Ensign and John Lopez Assist Allegiant Airlines 

Based on Mr. Hampton s Lobbying.......................................................... 29
ii

2. John Lopez Assists Mr. Hampton s Client Entravision ............................ 33

3. Mr. Hampton Lobbies Senator Ensign s Office on Behalf of

NV Energy................................................................................................. 34

4. Mr. Hampton Requests Help in Developing Relationships 

Between Allegiant Airlines and Federal Officials .................................... 35

K. Mr. Hampton Hires a Lawyer and Raises Damage Claims; Senator Coburn 

Handles Negotiations with Senator Ensign........................................................... 37

L. Senator Ensign Discloses the Affair to His Staff and the Public in June 

2009....................................................................................................................... 38

1. The Senator Speaks of Making the Hamptons Whole ........................... 38

2. Senator Ensign Makes Journal Entries Describing the 

Payment to the Hamptons ......................................................................... 39

3. Senator Ensign Makes Draft Public Statements Referring to a 

Severance Payment................................................................................ 40

4. Based on Advice from Senator Ensign s Attorney, His Staff

Removes All References to Payments in the Final Public 

Statement................................................................................................... 41

5. Mr. Hampton Reveals in Public That the Senator Made 

Payments to the Hamptons........................................................................ 42

6. Michael Ensign, Sharon Ensign, and Senator Ensign Submit 

Affidavits to the FEC Regarding the Payment.......................................... 43

a. There Was No Evidence Supporting the Assertion in 

the FEC Affidavits That the Senior Ensigns Paid for 

the Hamptons Trip to Hawaii....................................................... 44

b. Michael and Sharon Ensign s Payment to the

Hamptons Greatly Exceeds Other Gifts Given to 

Non-Ensign Family Members....................................................... 45

M. The Senator s Chief of Staff Misleads the Public Regarding Senator 

Ensign s Actions and Mr. Hampton s Lobbying Efforts ...................................... 46

III. SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY INQUIRY INVESTIGATION...................................... 47

A. The Request for Investigation of Senator Ensign.................................................. 47

B. The Preliminary Inquiry........................................................................................ 47

1. Initial Document Productions, Witness Interviews, and 

Depositions................................................................................................ 48

2. Retention of Special Counsel to Assist with Preliminary 

Inquiry ....................................................................................................... 49

a. Additional Document Production and Forensic 

Imaging.......................................................................................... 49
iii

b. Additional Depositions and Immunized Testimony...................... 50

C. The Retirement and Resignation of Senator Ensign ............................................. 51

IV. FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL......................................................................... 51

A. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Conspired to 

Violate, and Aided and Abetted Mr. Hampton s Violations of The Post 

Employment Contact Ban, 18 U.S.C. § 207 ......................................................... 51

1. Mr. Hampton s Contacts Were Not Exempt as

Informational Contacts .......................................................................... 51

2. Contacts by Covered Persons Are Illegal Even If the 

Requested Action Would Have Been Taken in Any Event ...................... 52

3. Evidence of Aiding and Abetting.............................................................. 53

4. Evidence of Conspiracy ............................................................................ 55

B. Findings Concerning the $96,000 Payment to the Hamptons............................... 56

1. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment Was 

Severance and the Evidence Does Not Support Claims That 

the Payment Was a Gift............................................................................. 56

2. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign 

Made False or Misleading Statements Concerning the 

Payment to the Hamptons ......................................................................... 57

3. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment 

Violated Senate Rule 38 and Statutory Prohibitions on 

Unofficial Accounts with Respect to Mr. Hampton.................................. 58

4. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment with 

Respect to Ms. Hampton Constituted an Unlawful and 

Unreported Campaign Contribution.......................................................... 59

5. Even if Senator Ensign s Assertions That the Payment Was a

Gift Were Credible, Senate Rule 35 Would Have Been 

Violated ..................................................................................................... 60

C. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Permitted 

Spoliation and Engaged in Obstruction of Justice ................................................ 61

D. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Engaged in 

Improper Conduct Reflecting Upon the Senate, Including Violations of 

His Own Senate Office Policies............................................................................ 62

1. The Applicable Standard........................................................................... 62

2. Application of the Improper Conduct Standard ........................................ 63

V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION.................................................................. 67
iv

KEY INDIVIDUALS & PRIMARY AFFILIATIONS

Daniel Albregts Counsel for Cindy and Doug Hampton

Brooke Allmon Director of Nevada Policy for Senator Ensign

Dick Bouts Department of Interior 

Brian Chatwin Legislative Assistant for Senator Ensign

Senator Tom Coburn United States Senator (R Oklahoma)

Tim Coe Fellowship Foundation

Senator John Ensign United States Senator (R Nevada)

Darlene Ensign Senator Ensign s wife

Michael Ensign Senator Ensign s father

Sharon Ensign Senator Ensign s mother

Rebecca Fisher Director of Communications for Senator Ensign

Maury Gallagher Chief Executive Officer, Allegiant Air

Chris Gober Outside Counsel for Senator Ensign at Fish & 

Richardson P.C.

Simon Gros Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, U.S. 

Department of Transportation

Bruce Hampton Treasurer for The Ensign Family Trust (no relation to 

Doug or Cindy Hampton)

Cindy Hampton Campaign treasurer for Ensign for Senate and BattleBorn 

PAC; wife of Douglas Hampton 

Douglas Hampton Friend of Senator Ensign s; Administrative Assistant to

Senator Ensign; husband of Cindy Hampton

Ponder Harrison Vice President, Allegiant Air, Nevada

Tinna Jackson Deputy Chief of Staff for Senator Ensign

Yorick Jurani Information Systems Manager for Senator Ensign

Starla Lacy NV Energy, Nevada

John Lopez Chief of Staff for Senator Ensign
v

Nick Lowry Senior Attorney, U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

Tory Mazzola Director of Communications for Senator Ensign

Matt Mesmer Attorney, Senate Select Committee on Ethics

Jason Mulvihill Chief Counsel and Legislative Director for Senator 

Ensign 

David Quinalty Legislative Assistant for Senator Ensign

Rachel Roberts Scheduler for Senator Ensign

Sig Rogich Rogich Communications Group

Lindsey Slanker November Inc.

Mike Slanker November Inc.

Paul Steelman Steelman Partners

Marty Sherman Fellowship Foundation

Pam Thiessen Legislative Director for Senator Ensign
vi

GLOSSARY

BattleBorn PAC Senator Ensign s Political Action Committee

CAA Congressional Accountability Act

CACI E-discovery vendor employed by SSCE

CODEL Congressional Delegation trip

Committee United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics

CREW Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EFS Ensign For Senate - Senator Ensign s Campaign

Committee

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEC Federal Election Commission

FECA Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

Manual Senate Ethics Manual

NRSC National Republican Senatorial Committee

Report Report of Special Counsel Carol Elder Bruce

RPC Republican Policy Committee

SAA U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

SSCE Senate Select Committee on Ethics
1

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

A. Introduction

The United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics ( SSCE or Committee ), assisted

by Special Counsel, conducted a Preliminary Inquiry into certain conduct of Senator John E. 

Ensign.1 The scope of the Preliminary Inquiry included an examination into allegations that 

Senator Ensign violated Senate rules and federal law, including provisions of the criminal code, 

and/or engaged in conduct that reflecting discredit upon the United States Senate regarding the 

termination of Doug Hampton s Senate employment, Mr. Hampton s post-employment contacts 

with the Senate, and payments made to the Hamptons, and any other matters as the Committee 

may direct.

On April 21, 2011, as the Preliminary Inquiry neared its conclusion, Senator Ensign 

announced he would resign as the 24th Senator from the State of Nevada. Senator Ensign s

resignation was effective May 3, 2011, the day before his sworn deposition was scheduled to 

begin.2 Although Senator Ensign s resignation divests the Committee of jurisdiction to impose 

discipline on him as of its effective date, Special Counsel, as required by the governing 

Resolution and Rules of the Senate, tenders this Report to the Committee for its consideration in 

the exercise of its continuing authority, obligations, and discretion under the Resolution and 

Rules.

The Committee s investigation began after it received a complaint on June 24, 2009, from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ). CREW supplemented 

that complaint on October 6, 2009. These filings presented allegations of sexual 

harassment/employment discrimination, post-employment ban violations, and issues related to 

payments to Douglas and Cynthia Hampton, Senator Ensign s former Administrative Assistant 

and campaign treasurer.

Based on these serious allegations and other information available to it, the Committee 

undertook an extensive Preliminary Inquiry as provided by Rule 3 of its Supplementary 

Procedural Rules. Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of 

America provides that [e]ach House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its

members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. Under the Committee s authorizing resolution, Senate Resolution 338, 88

th Cong. 2d Sess. 

(1964) ( S. Res. 338 ), the Committee is empowered to investigate not only violations of law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and the rules and regulations of the Senate, but also 

improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate. While Senators are expected to comply

with all laws, Senate Rules and Standards of Conduct, the Senate and the Committee have made 

clear that a Senator s obligations of ethical behavior go beyond this:

 1 Special Counsel Carol Elder Bruce was appointed on January 31, 2011.

2 Since the very beginning of the investigation, Committee staff has been in communication with 

Senator Ensign through his counsel and offered him the opportunity to provide any information or legal 

arguments he wanted the Committee to consider, and he has availed himself of this opportunity. Special 

Counsel continued this policy after her appointment.
2

Certain conduct has been deemed by the Senate in prior cases to be 

unethical and improper even though such conduct may not 

necessarily have violated any written law, or Senate rule or 

regulation. Such conduct has been characterized as improper

conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, and has provided the

basis for the Senate s most serious disciplinary cases in modern

times.3

During the course of the 22 month investigation, Committee staff, later joined by Special 

Counsel, conducted 72 witness interviews and depositions, including members of Senator 

Ensign s current and former staff and numerous third parties. The staffs for the Committee and

Special Counsel also reviewed over a half million documents received from numerous sources, 

including Senator Ensign and his staff. Included in the materials reviewed were hundreds of 

documents previously withheld or not disclosed that were produced after the Special Counsel 

was appointed and challenged the basis for the non-disclosure. 

Special Counsel was careful not to seek intimate details of the extramarital affair 

referenced in the initial complaint. Whether a person is unfaithful to his or her spouse is 

generally the couple s own business to deal with, perhaps, in private communications with

wronged spouses, marriage counselors, and others, and to surface the infidelity only if and when 

there is some public complaint or settlement made (such as in divorce proceedings or private 

resolutions). Reconciliation or resolution in private can protect the families involved and serve 

the greater good. This is no less true if one of the individuals is a public official. This case, 

however, involved two individuals whose employment and financial well being were dependent 

upon the Senator who employed them. This situation placed these individuals in a particularly 

vulnerable situation.

Further, although concealment is part of the anatomy of an affair, the concealment 

conduct in this case by Senator Ensign exceeded the normal acts of discretion and created a web 

of deceit that entangled and compromised numerous people, including a loyal Chief of Staff, was 

an abuse of the Senator's power, and raised serious issues of violations within the Committee's 

jurisdiction. Therefore, the details of the affair itself and the concealment activities are presented 

only to the extent relevant to establish the basis and context of the actions that led to the alleged 

violations.

As will be developed below, it is Special Counsel s determination that substantial

credible evidence exists that gives substantial cause to conclude that Senator Ensign engaged in 

violations of law and of Senate Rules within the Committee s jurisdiction under S. Res. 338, as

amended, including improper conduct which reflects upon the Senate under Section 2(a)(1) of S. 

Res. 338. Had Senator Ensign not resigned the Special Counsel would have recommended that 

the Committee initiate an adjudicatory review for the purpose of considering the appropriateness 

of disciplinary action against the Senator. The Special Counsel is confident that the evidence 

that would have been presented in an adjudicatory hearing would have been substantial and 

sufficient to warrant the consideration of the sanction of expulsion. Special Counsel notes, 

 3 Senate Ethics Manual ( Manual ), Appendix E, at 432.
3

though, that Senator Ensign, by resigning before the Special Counsel could question him under 

oath in a deposition about the facts, did not have the opportunity to challenge factual assertions 

and evidence, the Special Counsel s interpretation of the facts, or the strength of the case against 

him.

B. Summary of Findings

Based on the record in this matter, the Special Counsel respectfully submits that there is 

substantial credible evidence that provides substantial cause to conclude that Senator Ensign 

violated Senate Rules and federal civil and criminal laws, and engaged in improper conduct 

reflecting upon the Senate, thus betraying the public trust and bringing discredit to the Senate. The following summarizes the Special Counsel s findings. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Conspired to 

Violate, and Aided and Abetted Mr. Hampton s Violations of The Post

Employment Contact Ban, 18 U.S.C. § 207.

o Senator Ensign facilitated Mr. Hampton s unlawful post-employment 

lobbying by pressuring contributors and constituents to hire Mr. Hampton 

even though he had no public policy experience or value as a lobbyist other 

than access to the Senator and his office. For example, when a prominent 

Nevada constituent declined to hire Mr. Hampton, Senator Ensign 

instructed John Lopez, his Chief of Staff, to jack him up to high heaven

and inform the constituent that he was cut off from Senator Ensign and

could not contact him any longer.

o Senator Ensign agreed with Mr. Hampton and Mr. Lopez, to have Mr. 

Lopez be the point person for Mr. Hampton s contacts with the Senator s

office in order to provide Mr. Hampton with the necessary assistance for his 

lobbying efforts during his post-employment period, and not for the 

purpose of making certain that Mr. Hampton complied with lobbying 

restrictions. 

o Contemporaneous email communications reveal that Senator Ensign agreed 

to and encouraged the improper contacts between Mr. Hampton and Mr. 

Lopez. Additionally, according to Mr. Lopez, Senator Ensign wanted him 

to assist Mr. Hampton, and wanted it out of sight, out of mind, so that Mr. Lopez could take the heat on his [the Senator s] behalf. o Mr. Hampton improperly contacted Senator Ensign s office regarding at

least twelve different client matters, and initiated at least thirty improper 

contacts to Senator Ensign s office and various other Senate offices during

his one-year post-employment ban period.

o Senator Ensign communicated with Mr. Hampton and took action on behalf 

of his clients, including the following matters, among others, which are 

explained in detail in this Report: (1) a Department of Transportation 
4

( DOT ) enforcement action that was successfully resolved with a small

fine; (2) a draft environmental impact study; and (3) facilitating high-level 

meetings between one of Mr. Hampton s clients and the DOT Secretary, as 

well as other Senators. 

o Before and after Mr. Hampton s termination and during the time period

when the Senator was helping Mr. Hampton get clients, Senator Ensign 

instituted office policies that had the effect of making Mr. Hampton s

contacts harder to detect, including a shredding policy, discouraging use of 

official Senate email accounts in favor of Gmail, and directing that all 

inquiries of the Committee go through Mr. Lopez, the person he directed to 

interact with Mr. Hampton.

There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign and His Parents 

Made False or Misleading Statements to the Federal Election Commission 

Regarding the $96,000 Payment to the Hamptons.

o A $96,000 payment to Mr. Hampton, Ms. Hampton, and two of their three 

children from the Ensign Family Trust Fund, made at the time the 

Hamptons were terminated from the Senator s employ, constituted a

severance payment, and Senator Ensign s affidavit to the Federal Election

Commission ( FEC ) that the payment was not severance is false.

o Senator Ensign referred to the payment as severance on multiple occasions, 

including: (1) during an emergency staff meeting on June 15, 2009, when 

he disclosed his affair with Ms. Hampton to his Senate office staff; (2) in 

multiple drafts of a public statement in which the Senator publicly disclosed 

an affair with Ms. Hampton; (3) in credible testimony from at least four 

witnesses, one of whom stated that Senator Ensign said I m going to give

him as much severance as possible ; and (4) in his own personal journal 

entries, written in June 2009, over a year after the payment was made, 

describing his intent to help them transition into their new life. o Evidence revealed that the term severance was removed from Senator

Ensign s final June 2009 public statement not because Senator Ensign no 

longer believed the payment to be severance, but because he received legal 

counsel informing him that calling it severance could expose him to a host 

of criminal charges.4

o Senator Ensign s parents affidavits to the FEC are also misleading and

potentially false. The affidavits stated that the $96,000 payment was part of 

their pattern of giving to the Hamptons, and cited payment of an all-

 4 Special Counsel reviewed the document containing this legal advice, which had previously been 

withheld as privileged, and determined that the document was not privileged because it was addressed to 

a third party, not to Senator Ensign. The Senator has abandoned his prior claim of privilege as to this 

document.
5

expenses paid trip to Hawaii in 2006 for the Hamptons as support for this 

pattern of giving. The FEC credited and relied upon these affidavits in 

dismissing a complaint against Senator Ensign and his campaign, despite a 

recommendation by FEC staff counsel that an investigation be opened. 

o There was no evidence of any pattern of giving from Michael or Sharon

Ensign to the Hamptons. The senior Ensigns and Mr. Hampton had a 

contentious relationship not conducive to large monetary gifts and a 

pattern of giving, and had never directly given the Hamptons a gift

before. Additionally, the senior Ensigns had never given a single gift from 

the Ensign Family Trust Fund of the size of the Hampton payment to any 

non-family member, and also had no pattern or practice of giving 

significant gifts to any friends of their children.

There is Substantial Credible Evidence That a Portion of the $96,000 

Payment Constituted an Unlawful and Unreported Campaign Contribution 

and Violated Federal Law and a Senate Rule Prohibiting Unofficial Office 

Accounts.

o The part of the payment that was severance to Ms. Hampton constitutes an 

excessive and illegal campaign contribution pursuant to the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971 ( FECA ) because it exceeded the $2,000

limit for authorized political committees and the $5,000 limit for other 

political committees. The payment, as well as the failure to report the 

payment, are violations of federal civil and criminal law. 

o The part of the payment that was severance to Mr. Hampton would also 

constitute an improper unofficial office account as it was a payment from a 

private person, in this case the Ensign Family Trust Fund, to defray official 

expenses. 

There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Permitted 

Spoliation of Documents and Engaged in Potential Obstruction of Justice 

Violations.

o Senator Ensign deleted relevant documents and files after he knew they 

were likely to be subject to a legal claim and before and after formal 

notices to retain all documents relevant to the Preliminary Inquiry were 

issued.

o Senator Ensign should reasonably have known no later than June 15, 2009, 

that this evidence could be relevant to anticipated legal proceedings, and 

has stated through counsel that he did in fact anticipate legal proceedings 

as to the matters at issue in the Preliminary Inquiry no later than that date. 

o Senator Ensign s Gmail account, which the Senator generally used instead

of his official Senate email account and was thus not backed up on the 
6

Senate server, was deleted and replaced on October 1, 2009. 

Consequently, this important account was not available to be reviewed by 

the Committee s information technology vendor. o Additionally, the evidence establishes that Senator Ensign deleted at least 5 

relevant documents after an October 21, 2009 document retention notice 

issued by the Committee, including a document that directly contradicted 

the Senator s assertion that the payment to the Hamptons was not

severance. There is no evidence that the Senator took any steps at any time 

to alter his email deletion practices or to ensure that his office was retaining 

his emails pertinent to the matters at issue in the Preliminary Inquiry. 

There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Discriminated 

on the Basis of Sex and Engaged in Improper Conduct Reflecting Upon the 

Senate by Terminating the Hamptons Employment Because of the Affair. o Senator Ensign engaged in and continued an extramarital affair with Ms. 

Hampton, an employee of the Senator s campaign committee and his

leadership PAC, even though it was unwelcome to her, and then 

determined that the affair made it impossible for either of the Hamptons to 

continue working for him. 

o According to Ms. Hampton, the affair caused her considerable emotional 

distress, she repeatedly sought to end it, and she repeatedly expressed 

concern to Senator Ensign about losing her job. Senator Ensign 

nonetheless persisted in seeking to continue the affair, initiating constant 

and even relentless contacts after promising to end the affair multiple 

times.

o Senator Ensign had enormous power over the Hampton family at the time 

of the affair. He controlled the sole sources of income for both Mr. and 

Ms. Hampton, provided tuition and other financial assistance to the family, 

and had maintained a very close personal relationship with the family for 

years.

There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Violated His 

Own Senate Office Policies.

o Senator Ensign violated his own Senate office policies, including, among 

others, policies regarding fraternization and sexual harassment based on his 

affair with Ms. Hampton.

o The Senator engaged in conduct that would have been the basis for 

termination of one of his own employees pursuant to the Senator s written

office policies. It is reasonable to conclude that a violation of the Senator s

own office policies serious enough to warrant termination also constitutes 

improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate. 
7

C. The Special Counsel Recommends Referrals to the Department of Justice 

and the Federal Election Commission

The Special Counsel respectfully submits that the Committee should refer under Section 

2(a)(6) of S. Res. 338 and Rule 7(a) of the Committee s Supplementary Procedural Rules of the

matters outlined herein to the Department of Justice for further investigation and consideration of 

whether criminal prosecution of Senator Ensign is warranted for aiding and abetting a violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 207, or conspiring to violate that statute, for making false statements, for 

obstruction of justice, and for violations of federal campaign laws. The Special Counsel further 

submits that the Committee should also refer of this matter to the FEC to review its prior 

findings regarding Senator Ensign and his campaign and determine whether further investigation 

of potential violations of federal campaign laws is appropriate.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Factual Background

John Eric Ensign was born on March 25, 1958, in Roseville, California. He was raised in 

Las Vegas, Nevada by his mother, Sharon, and his stepfather, Michael Ensign, along with two 

other siblings. Senator Ensign was formally adopted by Michael Ensign when he was nine years 

old. Michael Ensign has long been involved with the casino industry in Nevada and is the 

former chairman and CEO of Mandalay Resort Group.

Senator Ensign holds a Bachelor s degree from Oregon State University, and received his 

degree as a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine from Colorado State University in 1985. Senator 

Ensign subsequently practiced veterinary medicine, and opened the first 24-hour animal hospital 

in Las Vegas.

Senator Ensign married Darlene (Sciaretta) Ensign in 1987 and they have three children, 

a 19 year old son, a 16 year old daughter, and a 14 year old son. Darlene grew up in Anaheim, 

California and attended Canyon High School in Anaheim Hills, California, with Cynthia 

(Barnes) Hampton. Cindy and Darlene continued their friendship after graduating from high 

school in 1981. Ms. Hampton met Doug Hampton in 1985 at the restaurant where she worked. 

She was 22 years old at the time. Senator Ensign became acquainted with Cindy and Doug 

Hampton sometime in 1986 through his wife when both couples were still dating. The Ensigns 

were married at a Catholic church in Boulder City, Nevada, on November 7, 1987, and the 

reception was at a hotel on the Las Vegas strip. Ms. Hampton was a bridesmaid at the Ensign 

wedding. The Hamptons were married on January 4, 1988. The Hamptons had a son in 1990, 

and then had twins, a boy and a girl, in 1992. The oldest Ensign child is just days younger than 

the Hamptons twins, and the children became close as the families spent more time together. 

Doug Hampton and Senator Ensign became good friends after their respective marriages. 

Darlene Ensign s parents lived in Southern California, and John and Darlene would come to visit

them, during which visits, Mr. Hampton and Mr. Ensign golfed and played basketball, and 

became very close friends. The Ensigns and Hamptons vacationed together in the summers at 

the Ensigns lake house just outside of Barstow, California. Mr. Ensign and Mr. Hampton would

also travel to golf tournaments held by the Jonathan Coe Foundation, a charity started by Tim 
8

Coe, Senator Ensign s long-standing spiritual advisor. Senator Ensign and Mr. Hampton also 

started a Christian-men s golf tournament in Las Vegas, and held the event at least twice.

In 1994, Senator Ensign was elected to a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, 

where he served until 1998. He was the Representative for Nevada s 1st District, which covers

Las Vegas and portions of unincorporated Clark County. Mr. Lopez, who would later serve as 

Senator Ensign s Chief of Staff during the critical time periods of this investigation, began

working for then Congressman Ensign in 1995, first as a legislative assistant and later as a senior 

legislative assistant. In 1998, Senator Ensign ran an unsuccessful campaign for Senate against 

incumbent Senator Harry Reid, losing by 428 votes after a ballot recount. Mr. Lopez served as 

Senator Ensign s Northern Nevada Coordinator in that campaign. Two years later, the other Senate seat in Nevada opened due to Senator Bryan s

retirement. Senator Ensign ran for the seat and was elected on November 7, 2000. He started his 

first term in the U.S. Senate in January 2001.

While in Washington, D.C., Senator Ensign resided at a townhouse known as the C

Street Center. Tim Coe was one of the spiritual leaders of the International Foundation, the

organization that counseled Members of Congress and others at the C Street Center and 

organized the annual National Prayer Breakfast. Tim Coe first met Senator Ensign in 1994 and 

became very close with him, counseling him on a weekly basis for various personal and spiritual 

issues.

Since early 2006, Senator Ensign has held positions on various Senate Committees 

including: Armed Services; Budget; Commerce, Science & Transportation; Finance; Health, 

Education, Labor & Pensions; Homeland Security; Rules & Administration; and Veterans 

Affairs.5 Notably, during the time period relevant to this investigation (i.e., between 2007 and 

2009), Senator Ensign served on the Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security and Science, 

Technology, and Innovation Subcommittees of the Committee for Commerce, Science and 

Transportation. As of April 1, 2011, he was the ranking member of the Communications, 

Technology & The Internet Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science and Transportation 

Committee; Healthcare Subcommittee of the Finance Committee; and the Ad Hoc Subcommittee 

on Disaster Recovery & Intergovernmental Affairs of the Homeland Security Committee.

Senator Ensign was elected Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee 

( NRSC ) in November 2006, making him the fourth highest leader in the Republican Party at

the time. Senator Ensign s Chairmanship increased his national profile. Senator Ensign also 

visited Iowa in May 2009, creating speculation that he was considering a Presidential election 

campaign.

Senator Ensign hired Michael and Lindsey Slanker to work as the NRSC s Political

Director and Finance Director, respectively. Mr. Slanker had previously managed Senator 

Ensign s 1998 and 2000 election campaigns. Around the time that the Slankers worked for the

 5

See United States Senate, Committees, available at

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/three_column_table/committee_assignments.htm.
9

NRSC, the Ensigns and the Slankers became family friends, and ultimately the Slankers and 

Hamptons became friends as well. 

The Hamptons moved to Las Vegas in 2004. According to Ms. Hampton, it was their

[Doug and Senator Ensign s] dream to always live by each other. Further, per Ms. Hampton, Senator Ensign and Mr. Hampton sought to facilitate a relationship between their families to 

walk through life together, a term used by the International Foundation spiritual advisors to

Senator Ensign.

Before the Hamptons finished moving to Las Vegas, Senator Ensign contacted Senator 

Reid, who assisted in getting Doug Hampton a job at Nevada Power (later NV Energy). Senator 

Ensign also told Ms. Hampton, in her words, that he could probably find me a spot on the

campaign. Mr. Hampton moved to Las Vegas before the rest of his family, and he lived with

the Ensigns while awaiting the sale of his home in California and for his family to move to Las 

Vegas. The home the Hamptons purchased in Summerlin, Nevada was in the same gated 

community as the Ensign home, and was less than a three-minute walk to the Ensign home.

Mr. Hampton worked in NV Energy s conservation department. Mr. Hampton was 

responsible for implementation of renewable energy programs. Ms. Hampton recalled that Mr. 

Hampton and Senator Ensign traveled to play golf with Walt Higgins, Nevada Power s

President. Ms. Hampton also recalled that after Doug began working for Nevada Power, the 

company paid for Doug s golf membership at an exclusive, expensive TPC course in Nevada. According to Ms. Hampton, they [NV Energy] liked that he had a relationship with the Senator. They gave Doug a golf membership to TPC by our home. And he was able to go and golf with 

the Senator whenever the Senator wanted to. Records from the TPC golf course indicate that NV Energy (then Sierra Pacific 

Resources) paid a $15,000 initiation fee for a corporate designee membership for Mr. Hampton, 

and paid for Mr. Hampton s business expenses at the course. Mr. Hampton was a member of the

club from May 2, 2005 until December 28, 2006. Senator Ensign was also a member of the club, 

from approximately July 14, 2004 until July 23, 2010. Senator Ensign played multiple rounds of 

golf with Mr. Hampton and had meals with him at the facility. Mr. Hampton left NV Energy in 

November 2006, and his TPC membership was transferred to a different NV Energy employee.

Senator Ensign and Doug Hampton played golf together very often, and would typically 

play both days of the weekend. Mr. Hampton and Senator Ensign were addicted to golf. The

Ensigns and the Hamptons would then often meet together for a family dinner on Sundays. 

According to Senator Ensign s father, Mike Ensign, the couples were always together: we

would see them [the Hamptons], and we would see their kids when we would visit John and his 

family. And they were always invited to everything, no matter what, if it was a dinner, this or 

that. They were always there. They were best friends. And the kids were best friends. Mr. Hampton borrowed money from Senator Ensign, including a $20,000 unsecured loan 

when their children were young. Mr. Hampton paid some of the funds back, but after the affair 

was disclosed, Senator Ensign forgave the loan. The Hamptons also borrowed money from the 

Ensigns to refinance their home in 2004 ($15,000) and 2006 ($25,000); the home was valued at 

over one million dollars and was too expensive for the Hamptons to otherwise afford. The 
10

Hamptons could not afford to send their children to the same school the Ensign children attended 

and, over Ms. Hampton s objection, the Ensigns paid for the Hampton children to attend the

school. The Ensigns paid approximately $15,170 in September 2006, and $23,970 in July 2007, 

for school tuitions and various other smaller amounts for expenses and school activities. The 

Hampton children attended public school for a period of time, but the Ensigns continued to insist 

on paying tuition, so the Hampton children attended the school. Ms. Hampton was the primary 

car pool driver for the Ensign and Hampton children. After the affair, the Ensigns stopped 

paying for the school, forcing the Hamptons to borrow approximately $20,000 from Ms. 

Hampton s father to permit the children to finish their education at the school. Ms. Hampton also recalled trips they took with the Ensigns, including two trips to Napa 

Valley, summer vacation trips to Barstow, California, a family trip to Lake Tahoe, a trip to Del 

Mar, California, a trip to Washington State, and a trip with the Senator and Darlene Ensign to 

Hawaii in December 2006. The Ensigns typically paid for those trips and expenses on the trips.

In 2006, Senator Ensign s Chief of Staff, Scott Bensing, announced he was leaving the 

office to work as Executive Director of the NRSC. Mr. Lopez had been working as Senator 

Ensign s Deputy Chief of Staff prior to Mr. Bensing s departure; and had held a variety of

legislative and campaign positions with Senator Ensign and other lawmakers over the past fifteen 

years. Mr. Lopez was interested in the vacant Chief of Staff position based on his experience 

and years of service for Senator Ensign. According to Mr. Lopez, Senator Ensign and he had 

always had a professional, but not a close personal, relationship, calling it an inch deep and a

mile wide. Mr. Lopez felt that, even with Mr. Lopez s strong congressional office and

legislative experience, the Senator preferred the company of alpha males as his confidantes

and friends, so Mr. Lopez was not surprised when the Senator expressed reservations to him 

about Mr. Lopez taking on the Chief of Staff position. 

Senator Ensign then had the idea that he could hire Doug Hampton as his Administrative 

Assistant, who could take on certain tasks for which he did not believe Mr. Lopez to be well- suited, and then Mr. Lopez could take the Chief of Staff position. Senator Ensign believed that 

Mr. Hampton had significant management training in prior positions, and claimed that Mr. 

Hampton was a management guru and had been trained in Japanese corporate management

skills. Prior to working at NV Energy, Mr. Hampton worked at the Tom James Company as a 

clothing salesman, at McDonnell Douglas as a Manager, and as a business pastor of a church in 

California. 

Mr. Lopez then divided Senate office responsibilities between the two positions: Mr. 

Hampton was responsible for management and oversight of the state offices and all personnel 

and administrative issues; Mr. Lopez, given his Capitol Hill experience, was responsible for all 

legislative and communications issues. Mr. Hampton began work for Senator Ensign as his 

Administrative Assistant in November 2006.

B. Senator Ensign s Affair with Cynthia Hampton

Cynthia Hampton was hired as Assistant Treasurer by the Senator s campaign committee, Ensign for Senate ( EFS ), in June 2004 and became Treasurer after the 2006 election. She also

became treasurer of the Senator s leadership PAC, BattleBorn PAC, in February 2008, and 
11

received an increase in pay based on these additional duties.6 Ms. Hampton s job was part-time, 

and she received positive job reviews from those who reviewed her work. Although the schedule 

varied, when Doug Hampton took the job as Administrative Assistant on the Senator s staff in

Washington, D.C., he typically would spend three to four days of the work week in Washington, 

and one day in Las Vegas, sometimes working out of the Senator s Las Vegas office. When Mr. Hampton was home on the weekends, he would spend a lot of the time golfing with Senator 

Ensign.

In November 2007, the Hampton home in Summerlin, Nevada was burglarized during the 

daytime. Although they were in Nevada at the time, none of the Hampton family members were 

home at the time of the incident. The burglars entered the home by breaking into the downstairs 

guest bathroom, and they stole electronics and jewelry. When Mr. Hampton came home, he saw 

that the front door to the home was left open, and suspected that something had occurred. Ms. 

Hampton was afraid to stay in the home, and the Ensigns offered to let the Hamptons stay in 

their home until the door was repaired and Ms. Hampton felt safe to return to the home. Senator 

Ensign said well, you guys are going to have to come and stay with me. The extramarital affair between Senator Ensign and Ms. Hampton began after the 

Hamptons moved into the Ensigns home following the burglary. As noted above, the Special

Counsel did not inquire into the intimate details of the affair, but did inquire as to the initiation, 

timing, and duration of the affair. 

Senator Ensign initiated the affair by contacting Ms. Hampton and asking her to meet 

with him. She asked Senator Ensign if he lost [his] mind, and he replied yes. Senator 

Ensign was very persistent and relentless in pursuing Ms. Hampton. According to Ms. Hampton, 

Senator Ensign just [wouldn t] stop, and kept calling and calling, and would never take no

for an answer. Ms. Hampton was in a vulnerable emotional state and a mess at the time Senator

Ensign was pursuing her, as her home had been burglarized, a family member was undergoing 

medical treatment, and Mr. Hampton s travel schedule back and forth to Washington gave them

little time to be together. Ms. Hampton ultimately yielded to Senator Ensign s pleas. Senator

Ensign and Ms. Hampton met periodically on the weekends during the affair. At the time the affair began, Ms. Hampton s sole source of income was her work for the

EFS and BattleBorn. Mr. Hampton s sole source of income was from his work as the Senator s

Administrative Assistant. Senator Ensign had the power to fire both Ms. Hampton and Mr. 

Hampton.

Once the affair began, Ms. Hampton had serious concerns about her job with Senator 

Ensign s campaign. She stated that I just didn t want to lose my job. I loved my job. I loved

the people I worked with ... I had a lot of fear of losing my job. Ms. Hampton repeatedly

 6 Although the timing of the increase in pay is coincidental to the timing of the affair between 

Senator Ensign and Ms. Hampton, there is no evidence to suggest that the increase was related to the 

affair. Ms. Hampton replaced the previous Treasurer, who was fired from the position because of alleged 

embezzlement, and her increased duties warranted a pay increase.
12

communicated her concerns about her job to Senator Ensign. Ms. Hampton sought counseling 

beginning in approximately February 2008, and continuing during the affair, and was advised to 

tell Senator Ensign to stop contacting her, and that she wanted to continue working as his 

campaign treasurer. Senator Ensign told Ms. Hampton that I ll do everything I can to keep you 

[employed]. 1. Mr. Hampton s Discovery of the Affair

Mr. Hampton found out about the affair on December 23, 2007, while he and his wife 

were on the way to the airport to pick up their son for the holidays. Senator Ensign was in a 

separate car on the way to the airport to greet the Hamptons son as well. While waiting in his

car as Ms. Hampton went to pick up their son s girlfriend from her home on the way to the

airport, Mr. Hampton saw that his wife left her cell phone in the car and he viewed a text 

message from Senator Ensign to Ms. Hampton that made clear an affair was occurring. Press 

reports indicate the text message stated How wonderful it is ... Scared, but excited. 7

When Ms. Hampton came back to the car, Mr. Hampton stated I know what you and

John are doing. Mr. Hampton then called Senator Ensign and said that he knew what was 

happening. Senator Ensign did not inform Darlene Ensign at the time. When the cars were 

parked in the airport parking lot, Mr. Hampton jumped out of his car and chased Senator Ensign 

in the airport parking lot. Ms. Hampton went into the airport and sat there for hours. Ms. Hampton later took a taxi back to her home. Once she was home, Mr. Hampton sought to get the 

couples together to talk about what occurred. 

On December 24, 2007, the Hamptons went to the Ensigns home, and the four adults

met in Senator Ensign s home office. Both Senator Ensign and Ms. Hampton stated that the

affair would stop, and Senator Ensign wept and apologized. The Ensigns and Hamptons then 

had a meeting with their children. The families then celebrated Christmas together. According 

to Ms. Hampton, had Senator Ensign stopped pursuing her at that time, as he had committed to 

do before both families, the affair would have ended at that time.

In January 2008, Senator Ensign began texting Ms. Hampton again, and the affair 

resumed. Ms. Hampton was very despondent during this time frame. Senator Ensign gave Ms. 

Hampton $3,000 in cash to purchase items for herself and to use for hotel rooms in Las Vegas 

that Ms. Hampton reserved in her name at his request for their clandestine meetings, because it

always had to be under my name, it could never be under his name. Senator Ensign told Ms. Hampton on more than one occasion that he wanted to marry 

her. Senator Ensign told Ms. Hampton that he wanted to marry her while they attended the 

National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.

During a Congressional Delegation trip (a CODEL ) to Iraq and Afghanistan from

February 7, 2008 to February 12, 2008, Senator Ensign repeatedly contacted Ms. Hampton. 

Telephone bills from the calls she received from Senator Ensign while he was on the CODEL 

 7 Text Message Exposed Senator Ensign s Af air, Associated Press, Nov. 23, 2009. Mr. Hampton 

also stated the text of the message during his television appearance on Nightline on November 23, 2009.
13

totaled nearly $1,000. Senator Ensign gave Ms. Hampton money to pay the telephone bill, and 

Ms. Hampton obtained a cashier s check to make the payment. Mr. Hampton, who was also on

the trip, became aware of the continued contact between Senator Ensign and Ms. Hampton. He 

asked to borrow Senator Ensign s cell phone to call Ms. Hampton, and Senator Ensign scrolled 

to a name listing for Aunt Judy rather than Ms. Hampton s real name. The call history on the

phone also disclosed to Mr. Hampton that the affair was continuing.

2. Mr. Hampton Seeks Assistance to End the Affair and an 

Intervention Is Held

When Mr. Hampton returned from the CODEL trip, he immediately sought the assistance 

of Tim Coe, Senator Ensign s long-time spiritual advisor, to assist with ending the affair. Mr. 

Coe recommended that they bring in a higher authority, someone much bigger than me, and

approached Senator Tom Coburn. Senator Coburn was also a resident of the C Street Center, 

and was a close spiritual and personal confidant to Tim Coe and to Senator Ensign.

Senator Coburn, Mr. Coe, David Coe (Tim Coe s brother and fellow spiritual advisor to 

the International Foundation), Mr. Hampton, and Marty Sherman decided to confront Senator 

Ensign about the affair and did so as soon as he returned to Washington, D.C. from the CODEL 

on Valentine s Day, February 14, 2008. They confronted Senator Ensign at the C Street House. 

Senator Ensign started to lie, but he was told that we know the truth, and then Senator

Ensign confessed to the affair. Senator Ensign was told that the affair had to stop. Mr. Hampton 

was very emotional during the meeting, and at one point got very close to a physical 

confrontation with Senator Ensign. Senator Coburn asked Mr. Hampton to leave, stating we ll

take it from here. We ll take care of this. At that confrontation, Senator Ensign agreed to write what appeared to be a sincerely 

apologetic letter to Ms. Hampton ending the affair. Senator Ensign wrote the letter, and Mr. 

Sherman mailed it from a Federal Express mailing facility. After it was mailed, Senator Ensign 

immediately called Ms. Hampton to alert her about the confrontation and to tell her to disregard 

the letter, which he had written only for the benefit of the men who were confronting him.

On February 16, 2008, two days after the intervention, Tim Coe received a call from 

Doug Hampton. Mr. Hampton was looking for the Senator to have him sign some documents for 

the NRSC, and saw his car and Ms. Hampton s car parked in a parking lot of a hotel close to

their Summerlin neighborhood. Mr. Coe pleaded with him [Hampton] to go home. Mr. Coe 

called Senator Ensign and stated I know exactly where you are. I know exactly what you are

doing. Put your pants on and go home. Senator Ensign initially said he would not leave the

hotel room, telling Mr. Coe I can t, I love her [Ms. Hampton]. Senator Ensign ultimately 

agreed to leave the hotel. After he left the hotel, Senator Ensign told Mr. Coe that he wanted to 

marry Ms. Hampton. 

The following day, February 17, 2008, Mr. and Ms. Hampton went to Senator Ensign s

home early in the morning to talk about the affair. Darlene Ensign was in California at the time 

with her daughter. Mr. Hampton wanted the affair to stop, and wanted things to go back to how

they were. It was not a good meeting because Senator Ensign stated that he was in love with 

Ms. Hampton and wanted to marry her and that Doug could not work for him any longer. 
14

According to Ms. Hampton, the Senator subsequently told her that her husband had to leave the 

Senate office because he did not want Doug to be aware of the Senator s schedule, and that

Senator Ensign would place fictitious events on his schedule so he could meet with Ms. 

Hampton. 

Senator Ensign subsequently called Darlene Ensign to inform her of his continued 

feelings for Ms. Hampton. Senator Ensign then moved out of the family home to live with his 

parents for a time period. Senator Ensign s State Director confirmed that she picked Senator

Ensign up from his parents home for a period, and knew that the Senator was separated from his

wife. Ms. Hampton testified that Senator Ensign informed his parents of the affair, and was told 

by his parents to stop the affair. Ms. Hampton stated that the affair stopped for a period of time, 

but then he started right back up again. 3. The Affair Continues until July 2008

The affair continued after the February 17, 2008 meeting in the Ensign home and after 

Senator Ensign moved out of his home to live with his parents. Senator Ensign gave Ms. 

Hampton money to purchase two new cellular phones to be used exclusively so that they could 

communicate without detection. Records from these phones were retrieved and showed 

numerous text messages from Senator Ensign to Ms. Hampton. Specifically, 76 text messages 

were exchanged between Senator Ensign and Ms. Hampton from March 7, 2008 to March 10, 

2008. Darlene Ensign became aware of these new phones, and they were disconnected. Senator 

Ensign wanted to buy two more phones, but Ms. Hampton declined because she did not want the 

contact to continue.

Senator Ensign also created email accounts with fictitious names in order to email Ms. 

Hampton, including fredschwartz72@yahoo.com, mariaschwartz@yahoo.com, and

maryholland82@yahoo.com. Senator Ensign called Ms. Hampton multiple times during this

period from various locations at the Capitol, the Senate gym, and from New York while on a 

fund-raising trip. 

Mr. Coe continued his efforts to stop the affair. Mr. Coe decided that Senator Coburn 

was not big enough, so he decided to involve Senator Ensign s father, Michael Ensign. Mr. Coe gave Michael Ensign s cell phone number to Senator Coburn, and Senator Coburn agreed to

call Michael Ensign. According to Mr. Coe s detailed and specific recollection, a call between

Senator Coburn and Michael Ensign absolutely occurred. Michael Ensign stated that he 

appreciated the call, and he d handle it. After that call, Senator Ensign called Mr. Coe. Mr. Coe testified that I ve never seen him so angry. Senator Ensign cursed at Mr. Coe, a fact

Mr. Coe recalled because he s never cursed me before, and he was very, very upset. Senator

Ensign then yelled all sorts of expletives, and told Mr. Coe that he had no right to involve his

father. Senator Ensign hung up on Mr. Coe before he could respond. Mr. Coe had never seen

that character before in him [Senator Ensign]. Senator Coburn denied speaking with Michael

Ensign after he was informed about the affair. Michael Ensign did not recall whether a call with 

Senator Coburn had taken place, but in response to a question from the Special Counsel, Michael 

Ensign allowed as how the call may have taken place. 
15

Additionally, a second confrontation occurred at the C Street Center approximately a 

month after the February 14, 2008 intervention. The intervention was instigated by Senator 

Coburn. Senator Coburn stated I can t take this any more. I ve got to tell these guys. Mr. Sherman and others, including Members of Congress, went to Senator Ensign s bedroom at the C

Street Center and confronted him about the affair. It appeared that Senator Ensign got it and

was more receptive to actually stopping the affair. According to Mr. Coe, Senator Ensign lied 

about the affair and how it persisted, and Mr. Coe did not trust him going forward. Also, as

noted above, Mr. Sherman did not believe that the affair was going to end after the initial 

intervention because he did not believe Senator Ensign. 

Senator Ensign sent Ms. Hampton an email on April 1, 2008 asking whether it is

possible to talk, and stated it concerns your job and a few loose ends. Ms. Hampton was

shaking when she got the email, and called Senator Ensign because she believed it was about

her job, which he knew she was fearful of losing. When she called, Senator Ensign stated that 

he missed me and wanted to still see me, thus using Ms. Hampton s job as a ruse to speak with

her and confess further feelings to her. Ms. Hampton was upset, but believed that honestly in

the back of my mind, I just thought John would never hurt our family. According to Ms. Hampton, the affair continued very sporadically, with one meeting in 

June and one in July 2008 for a very short visit. Ms. Hampton felt that she was not a healthy

person at that time, and her attitude during these meetings was that my life is ruined, so

whatever, and that she agreed to see the Senator only because his persistence wore her down. 

Although Ms. Hampton continually told Senator Ensign to stop contacting her, he ignored her 

wishes. This was frustrating to her because if he would have just left me alone, it would have 

ended back in December. Ms. Hampton sent Senator Ensign an email in August 2008

imploring him to stop contacting her because her life and family is in shambles. Ms. Hampton

never heard from Senator Ensign again. Ms. Hampton saw Senator Ensign at her children s

graduation from high school in 2008, but has not seen him since that event. 

In addition to filing for divorce, Ms. Hampton recently filed for bankruptcy and is 

presently moving out of California to work for a Christian organization.

C. Senator Ensign Plans for Transition Finances for Mr. Hampton

Mr. Coe and Mr. Sherman developed a plan to assist the Hamptons. Mr. Coe told Mr. 

Hampton that the first thing that should be done is to separate people, which meant Mr. Hampton leaving the Senate office, and leaving Las Vegas. Mr. Hampton expressed concerns 

about employment, and Mr. Coe said I ll help you find a job. Mr. Hampton also expressed

concerns about his home, which was heavily mortgaged. A plan was formed for Senator Ensign 

to take over the mortgage or find a way to buy the home.

Mr. Sherman advocated assistance in relocating the Hamptons to Colorado, where he 

knew some businessmen who may be able to assist Doug Hampton with employment. The plan 

involved Senator Ensign taking over the Hamptons Las Vegas mortgage or buying the house

from them, and then providing them with enough money to live for a year and re-establish 

themselves in a new location. 
16

Mr. Coe advocated the idea of Senator Ensign providing transition finances to the

Hamptons so they could move out of Las Vegas. Mr. Coe and others asked Doug Hampton 

what is it going to take to get you out of town? Mr. Hampton stated that he needed the

following: (1) pay off his mortgage; (2) a new job; (3) an appropriate school for his kids; and (4) 

be in a place where Cindy would not have to work. Mr. Coe talked about the finances with 

Senator Ensign, who stated that I ll take responsibility for whatever I need to do, but did not

like the thought of buying the [Hamptons ] house. According to Mr. Coe, Senator Ensign

stated that there s no way, shape or form my father is going to give any money or help in the

finances of this thing. According to Mr. Sherman, Senator Coburn was aware of the transition plan for 

relocating the Hamptons to Colorado, and was in favor of the plan. According to Mr. Coe, 

Senator Coburn was supportive of the plan to provide transition finances. Senator Coburn was 

also supportive of putting the Hampton house on the market to see if it could get sold. Mr. Coe 

considered Senator Coburn part of the team to work out the financial piece of the issues. According to Mr. Coe, Doug was more confident talking to Senator Coburn about finances than

he was us, and Mr. Hampton thought Senator Coburn could deliver John s father, who was

wealthy. Senator Coburn played a support role, and encouraged Senator Ensign to consider

the plans developed by Mr. Coe and others regarding transition and separation. 

D. Senator Ensign Arranges a Consulting Firm Position for Doug Hampton 

After Terminating Mr. Hampton

As set out above, when the Hamptons met with Senator Ensign at his home on or about 

February 17, 2008, Senator Ensign advised Mr. Hampton that he could no longer work for him. 

Immediately thereafter, on February 19, 2008, Mike Slanker, Lindsey Slanker, and Senator 

Ensign had lunch at the Nordstrom Café in Las Vegas. According to Mr. Slanker, Senator 

Ensign stated that Mr. Hampton was leaving the Senate because the travel was too much and

Cindy Hampton had health issues. 

While Senator Ensign was away from the table, Mr. and Ms. Slanker discussed Mr. 

Hampton s departure and wondered if there was a way the two of them could help Mr. Hampton. Mr. Slanker had the idea of allowing Mr. Hampton to use November Inc., a company owned by 

the Slankers, as a platform for Mr. Hampton s work. Mr. Slanker had previously created

November Inc. in 2003 as a campaign consulting firm, which provided advice to multiple 

campaigns at any given time. While November Inc. had other partners at various times, it was 

primarily a creation of the Slankers. When the Slankers joined the NRSC, they ended their 

relationships with all current clients of November Inc. and let the company sit dormant. 

November Inc. did not have any current clients or income at the time given the absence of the 

current principals. According to Mr. Slanker, if Mr. Hampton was able to obtain clients, he 

could use November Inc. as the business card. When Senator Ensign returned to the table and heard the idea about November Inc., he 

became giddy. Mr. Slanker had not anticipated this reaction; it was his understanding that Mr. Hampton would go out and get a job at an established firm, and that potentially using November 

Inc. would simply be a fallback plan. Suddenly, however, Senator Ensign appeared settled on 
17

the prospect of Mr. Hampton working through November Inc. Senator Ensign called Mr. 

Hampton from the Café and told him of the plan. 

Immediately after the lunch at the Nordstrom Café, Senator Ensign met with Mr. Slanker 

and Mr. Hampton in his Las Vegas office. During the initial meeting, Senator Ensign proposed 

that he would help Mr. Hampton obtain three clients paying $5,000 per month, enough for Mr. 

Hampton to be whole. From the Slankers perspective, they were not forming a partnership 

with Mr. Hampton, but were just giving him a platform from which he could find clients and eat

what [he] kill[ed]. At the time they agreed to let Mr. Hampton work for November Inc., Mike and Lindsey 

Slanker did not know of the affair between Senator Ensign and Cindy Hampton. At some point 

after the Slankers agreed to have Mr. Hampton work at November Inc., during the Spring of 

2008, Darlene Ensign called the Slanker residence late at night. Darlene Ensign informed Mike 

Slanker in that telephone conversation that Senator Ensign had been having an affair with Cindy 

Hampton. Mr. Slanker told Lindsey Slanker about the call; shortly thereafter, Darlene Ensign 

spoke directly with Lindsey Slanker, confirming the affair. 

Mr. Slanker met with Mr. Hampton and told him that he knew all about the affair; 

Mr. Hampton suggested that the two men speak with Senator Ensign. Mr. Slanker and 

Mr. Hampton confronted Senator Ensign in his office at the NRSC in Washington, D.C. According to Mr. Slanker, Senator Ensign was eating Wheat Thins one at a time, kind of

tossing them in his mouth, and he didn t seem to miss a beat, and he gave a very weak apology. Mike Slanker noted that Senator Ensign had lied to him about why Mr. Hampton was leaving the 

Senate, and felt that it was a burden imposed on him; he did not know why he was given this 

burden because he was peripheral to the situation. After learning of the affair, the plan remained 

the same: Doug Hampton would work for November Inc. and obtain his own clients.

Tim Coe stated that Doug Hampton had no lobbying experience, no Capitol Hill 

experience, and stated he s not known at all. Therefore, Mr. Coe was surprised when Senator

Ensign informed Mr. Coe that Mr. Hampton was going to work for November Inc. Mr. Coe 

stated how does that get him [Hampton] out of the city? Senator Ensign stated he s not

leaving, and Mr. Coe responded well, that s insane. E. The Senator Has Extensive Discussions with Doug Hampton about Severance 

Payments

In late March 2008, Darlene Ensign sent Ms. Hampton an email informing her that she 

would no longer be Senator Ensign s campaign treasurer. Senator Ensign subsequently stated to

Ms. Hampton that his father and Darlene Ensign would not let Ms. Hampton be the treasurer any 

longer.

Doug Hampton and Senator Ensign first discussed the payment of severance on April 2, 

2008. Mr. Hampton provided information regarding discussions he had with the Senator and 

provided to the Committee what he represents to be notes from the April 2, 2008 meeting and 

calls, described as Record of discussions with John Ensign. Doug Hampton stated that he

prepared the notes the evening of April 2, 2008 in order to record his discussions with the 
18

Senator about the exit strategy. Mr. Hampton s attorney, Daniel Albregts, testified that his

understanding from Mr. Hampton was that the notes were prepared contemporaneously to make

sure he had a record something in writing so that he could remember what they discussed, in 

case he needed it for later. Ms. Hampton testified that the notes were consistent with how Mr. Hampton typically worked: He s very detailed like that. And that s how his mind works. He

would always record everything. Mr. Hampton stated that on April 2, 2008, following an overnight flight to Washington, 

D.C., he and the Senator met at the Senator s Capitol hideaway. The two discussed an exit

strategy and severance for both himself and Ms. Hampton. Mr. Hampton believed that he may

have been the one to first introduce the idea of a severance payment. Mr. Hampton 

memorialized the conversation with Senator Ensign in notes that evening, and recorded the 

following in an excerpt from his notes: 

9:40 AM, 4/2 DC

Brief discussion with him on four matters

Exit strategy and severance for Cindy

Exit strategy and severance for Doug

Communication plan

Absolutely no contact with Cindy

-He response [sic] was he understood

(emphasis added). 

Following the in-person meeting, Senator Ensign phoned Mr. Hampton twice on April 2, 

2008 to discuss Mr. Hampton s imminent departure from the Senator s office and to determine

the amount of severance that both he and Ms. Hampton would receive.

During a telephone call at noon on April 2, 2008, Doug Hampton proposed using Ms. 

Hampton s prior medical history as an excuse as to why the Hamptons were leaving the office

(Ms. Hampton subsequently had intestinal surgery in May 2008). Further excerpts from Doug 

Hampton s notes from that call reflect the following:

Noon, 4/2/ DC

John called me on my cell from NRSC to discuss some details

- I shared my idea of health plan Cindy history

- We discussed timing of departure JE agreed for me to stay on thru April - Better for client building He offered to continue effort. - Said he would go to work on the above issues

Later on April 2, 2008, at 7:30 p.m., Senator Ensign called Mr. Hampton with a proposal. 

Senator Ensign proposed that Doug Hampton receive two months severance and that Ms. 

Hampton receive one year severance. The two discussed gift rules and tax law, and splitting up 

the payments into various amounts, totaling $96,000, as a way to avoid the payment of taxes on 

the amount. Doug Hampton s notes from the 7:30 p.m. call state as follows:

7:30 P.M., 4/2 LV
19

John called asked if it was ok to share the outline of a plan

- Doug ~ 2 mn severance, continue client building

- Cindy ~ 1 year salary

- Discussed gift rules and tax law

- Shared a plan to have both he and Darlene write ch s in various

amounts equaling 96K

He asked if the offer was ok and did I agree I said I would need to think 

about and would get back with him.

(emphasis added).

Ms. Hampton testified that Doug Hampton called her on April 2, 2008 and told her about 

his conversations with Senator Ensign. Ms. Hampton learned from Doug Hampton that Senator 

Ensign planned to pay her one year of severance and to pay Doug Hampton two months 

severance. Ms. Hampton testified that she later spoke to Senator Ensign about the April 2, 2008 

discussions. The Senator told her that she should expect a check in the mail that consisted of one 

year severance for her and two months severance for Doug Hampton. Ms. Hampton had no 

recollection that either her husband or Senator Ensign informed her that they had agreed to a 

total severance payment of $96,000.

Mr. Hampton recalled that after the April 2, 2008 meetings with Senator Ensign, he 

returned to Las Vegas. Mr. Hampton recalled receiving a call from Senator Ensign in which 

Senator Ensign told him that he would give Mr. Hampton a check and that you don t have to

tell anyone about it. Senator Ensign confirmed with the Committee, through counsel, that he

spoke with Mr. Hampton about the request, told Mr. Hampton he would be receiving the check, 

and discussed the federal gift tax.

F. The Senator s Father Makes a Payment of $96,000 from the Ensign Family

Trust to the Hamptons

After the April 2, 2008 meeting and calls between Doug Hampton and Senator Ensign, 

the Hampton family Doug, Cynthia, and two of their three children received a check for 

$96,000, dated April 7, 2008, from the Ensign Family Trust account.

The check appears to have been processed on or about April 9, 2008. No evidence has 

been presented that the Hampton children actually received the funds that were specifically for 

them, or as to whether the Hamptons placed the funds in a custodial account for the minor 

children. 8 The evidence indicates that Mr. and Mrs. Hampton dictated how the entirety of the 

funds should be spent, which is consistent with the evidence in the record that the payment was a 

severance. 

 8 One of the Hampton children was a paid intern for the NRSC during this time period, specifically 

from March 2008 to August 2008. The Special Counsel developed no evidence to suggest that he did not 

work and earn his payments or that this employment was related to the affair or Mr. Hampton s post- employment lobbying activities. 
20

The Ensign Family Trust is an estate planning tool that holds the significant personal 

assets of Michael and Sharon Ensign, the parents of Senator Ensign. Senator Ensign has no 

authority to order disbursements from the trust. Michael Ensign directs the management of the 

trust and his chief financial officer, Bruce Hampton (no relation to Doug or Cindy Hampton), 

executes Michael Ensign s directions. The amount of the check surprised Ms. Hampton, as the check amount exceeded the 

amount that she had expected to receive pursuant to her discussions with her husband and the 

Senator. As of April 2008, Ms. Hampton s annual salary was approximately $50,000, while Mr. Hampton s fiscal year 2007 salary was $144,146.71 (averaging approximately $12,000 per 

month pretax). Ms. Hampton expected a check from Senator Ensign for one year severance for 

herself ($50,000) and two months severance for Doug Hampton (approximately $24,000), or 

approximately $74,000 in total. 

Ms. Hampton spoke to Senator Ensign by phone and asked how he arrived at the check 

amount. Senator Ensign informed her that she could put the extra money toward her health 

insurance. Ms. Hampton also asked Senator Ensign why the check came from the Ensign Family 

Trust, rather than the Senator, and why her children were included as payees. Senator Ensign 

explained that the check fell within the maximum amounts permissible under the applicable gift 

and tax laws.

Following the receipt of the $96,000 check, on April 9, 2008, Ms. Hampton left her 

employment at the Senator s campaign office. G. Mr. Hampton Receives Excessive Unused Vacation Pay

Mr. Hampton s last day on the Senate payroll was May 1, 2008. Mr. Hampton received

an additional $6,000 payment in his final month of employment, which exceeded the permitted 

rate of pay for Senate personal offices. Senator Ensign s office released a statement stating that

$6,000 of the final payment was for 12 days of unused vacation. 9 Several individuals provided information to the Committee staff that Mr. Hampton was 

not in either Senator Ensign s Washington office or any of the local state offices for the majority

of April 2008, and his work attendance was significantly less in the months leading up to April 

2008. Therefore, there were likely no vacation days available to Mr. Hampton upon his 

departure from the Senate.

 9 Paul Kane, Ensign Defends Payments to Woman He Had Affair With, Washington Post Capitol 

Briefing, June 18, 2009. 
21

H. Senator Ensign Takes Action Surrounding Mr. Hampton s Post- Employment Lobbying

1. Senator Ensign Takes Steps to Reduce Records Retention, 

Communicate Off of the Senate Server, and Minimize Contacts with 

the Ethics Committee

Prior to public disclosure of the affair, Senator Ensign implemented office policies that 

would reduce the preservation of records in the office. Senator Ensign further sought to 

minimize contacts with outside parties including the Senate Ethics Committee. 

On March 13, 2008, Jessica Walton, Senator Ensign s Office Manager, emailed Senator

Ensign s staff regarding implementing a long overdue shredding program requested by Senator

Ensign. John Lopez testified10 that Senator Ensign did indeed request the implementation of a 

shredding program in order to dispose of sensitive documents. At or around the same time, 

Senator Ensign approached John Lopez about using text messaging or PIN messaging11 instead 

of communicating by email. According to Mr. Lopez, Senator Ensign expressed some concerns 

about email communications remaining on the Senate server. 

Additionally, in May 2008, Mr. Lopez took steps to formalize an informal policy for 

Senator Ensign s staff requiring all contact with the Ethics Committee to be channeled through 

Lopez. This informal policy arose out of an instance in October of 2007 in which Senator 

Ensign attended a charity fundraiser in South Dakota, and assembled a package of Washington, 

D.C.-related tours and experiences. The auction raised over $10,000 on one of the packages. 

Mr. Lopez recognized that such an amount would violate the gift limit. Mr. Lopez asked Ms. 

Jackson to inform the charity that it would need to refund the difference between what it received 

and the gift limit, and wrote a memo to Senator Ensign detailing these ethical concerns. After 

reading the memo, Senator Ensign summoned Mr. Hampton and Mr. Lopez and was furious. According to Mr. Lopez, Senator Ensign stated the Ethics Committee, they will always tell you

no if you want to do something they take the most conservative view about everything. Senator Ensign then stated that only Mr. Lopez should speak to the Ethics Committee, and he 

should clear all contacts with the Ethics Committee with Senator Ensign.

Senator Ensign s position regarding the Committee is also memorialized in an Ethics

Committee Memorandum in which Senator Ensign instructed his staff to ignore and not follow 

Committee staff guidance on a particular issue while the Committee staff member was in the 

meeting. According to the Memorandum, Senator Ensign instructed his staff to completely

disregard the advice given. 

 10 Mr. Lopez testified before the Special Counsel under a grant of immunity.

11 PIN messaging is a proprietary messaging service that allows BlackBerry users to send messages 

directly to one another; a PIN message is not routed through the user s email account. See BlackBerry 

User Manual, About PIN Messages, available at 

http://docs.blackberry.com/en/smartphone_users/deliverables/1487/About_PIN_messages_26344_11.jsp

(last visited April 25, 2011). 
22

On May 8, 2008, Mr. Lopez met via teleconference with the staffers in Senator Ensign s

Nevada offices and informed them of the change. He also requested that the Office Manual be 

updated to require all contacts with the Ethics Committee to go through him. The timing of 

Senator Ensign s interest in the destruction of records and communication with oversight 

committees coincides with the affair with Cindy Hampton, and Mr. Hampton s departure. 2. Senator Ensign Takes Efforts to Persuade and Compel Constituents 

to Hire Mr. Hampton

Immediately following the meeting in which Senator Ensign told Mr. Hampton he could 

no longer work for him, Senator Ensign set out to find Mr. Hampton work. Senator Ensign met 

with constituents, only to see if Mr. Hampton could meet with them for an interview shortly 

thereafter. For example, Senator Ensign met with executives at Switch Communications, a 

Nevada company, on February 20, 2008, and company representatives met with Mr. Hampton on 

February 27, 2008.

Mr. Hampton s position as Senator Ensign s Administrative Assistant constituted his

only relevant experience with respect to the federal government. While employed by Senator 

Ensign, Mr. Hampton had no responsibilities pertaining to policy matters. Senator Ensign s staff

testified that Mr. Hampton did not show much interest in policy, did not seem to grasp policy 

issues, and he lacked the horsepower to work on policy matters. Despite all of this, Senator

Ensign marketed Mr. Hampton as someone who could provide valuable federal government 

relations services to Nevada constituents. 

Significantly, according to Mr. Hampton s April 2, 2008 notes of the severance

discussions set forth above, Senator Ensign proposed an explanation for Mr. Hampton s

departure based on a falling out between the two men. When Mr. Hampton noted that this

would hurt his ability to obtain clients, Senator Ensign agreed. Mr. Hampton s notes also

indicate that Senator Ensign was assisting Mr. Hampton in finding clients. This understanding 

tends to show awareness, on the part of Senator Ensign, that Hampton would be lobbying 

Senator Ensign s office; the relationship between Hampton and Senator Ensign was only

important for Mr. Hampton s business development if the pitch to clients involved that

relationship. Senator Ensign s assistance in finding clients for Mr. Hampton exceeded the typical 

provision of references and, on occasion, Senator Ensign used his office and staff to intimidate 

and cajole constituents into hiring Mr. Hampton. In one instance, Senator Ensign contacted Paul 

Steelman, a Las Vegas developer, to see if he would hire Mr. Hampton to do government affairs 

work. Mr. Steelman had previously worked with Sig Rogich, a Nevada consultant formerly of 

R&R Partners, on similar issues. Mr. Rogich emailed Mr. Steelman and recounted that Mr. 

Steelman was not really interested in adding another staff member consultant and

encouraged Mr. Steelman to stay with that position. According to Mr. Lopez and others, after

Senator Ensign heard that Mr. Steelman was declining to hire Mr. Hampton based on Mr. 

Rogich s advice, Senator Ensign had John Lopez phone Mr. Rogich and jack him up to high 

heaven and tell him that he is cut off from the office and never to contact [Senator Ensign] ever 

again. When Mr. Lopez conveyed that message by phone to Mr. Rogich, Mr. Rogich responded 

that there s nothing [Hampton] could do for us. Mr. Rogich was angry, as a supporter of
23

Senator Ensign s, that the Senator had not made the phone call personally, but confirmed that he

understood he was not to contact Senator Ensign in the future. Mr. Lopez, reflecting on this situation, testified that:

I just wanted to mention that when the Senator asked me to do that, 

I really felt like this is wrong. I remember really feeling like that 

was abusing the office, you know, cutting someone off from 

official action because he didn t hire [Hampton], I thought I had 

qualms about what I was asked to do.

(emphasis added)

One executive at P2SA and Biodiesel of Las Vegas reported a similar interaction with 

Ms. Allmon, Senator Ensign s Director of Nevada policy, in which she pressured the companies 

to hire Mr. Hampton for access to Senator Ensign.12 Although Committee Staff received 

conflicting testimony from witnesses, one witness, Tad Greener, stated that he spoke with 

Allmon about his company and its industry, and Allmon responded I don t care about that, what

are you going to do about Doug? Mr. Greener informed CREW of this information, and he also

spoke with the New York Times. Ms. Allmon denied having made such a statement, but the 

Committee Staff did not generally find her testimony to be credible.

Even where Senator Ensign did not resort to coercive techniques, he engaged in an 

extraordinary effort to market Mr. Hampton to Nevada businesses and individuals. Starting on 

or about February 20, 2008, three days after meeting with the Hamptons in his home, Senator 

Ensign called a number of entities and executives on Mr. Hampton s behalf, including but not

limited to Allegiant Airlines; NV Energy; Open Range; Ecommlink; and Switch 

Communications. At this time, Senator Ensign served on two subcommittees on the Committee 

for Commerce, Science, and Transportation (the Aviation Operations, Safety and Security 

Subcommittee, and the Science, Technology and Innovation Subcommittee), which were 

influential bodies on topics significant to many of these constituents. 

I. Mr. Hampton Departs and Immediately Lobbies Senator Ensign s Staff

Prior to Mr. Hampton s departure from the Senate, Allegiant Airlines agreed to hire him

as an outside consultant for government affairs. Allegiant, a regional commercial airline based 

in Las Vegas, had a long-standing relationship with Senator Ensign through two of its 

executives, Maury Gallagher and Ponder Harrison. 

At some point prior to April 18, 2008, Mr. Lopez learned that Mr. Hampton would be 

working for Allegiant, and that Senator Ensign had been lining up work for Hampton; he

relayed this information to Mr. Quinalty, who had provided information regarding FAA 

reauthorization to Mr. Lopez and Mr. Hampton. Mr. Lopez does not recall when and from 

whom he received this information.

 12 Eric Lipton, Investigation Shows Ensign Appealed to Company, New York Times (April 1, 2010).
24

In April 2008, his last month in his position as Administrative Assistant, Mr. Hampton 

suddenly developed an interest in policy issues pertaining to aviation. For example, Ms. 

Thiessen, Legislative Director, testified that she recalled Mr. Hampton engaging in a very long 

discussion on a white paper related to Allegiant in his last legislative meeting. This was odd 

from her perspective because he had never shown interest in the issue before. The same day Mr. 

Hampton announced he was leaving the Senate, April 16, 2008, he sent an email to Mr. 

Mulvihill, one of Senator Ensign s legislative staffers and legal counsel, regarding increases in

the price of oil, noting that the airline industry is predicting 15B in losses and seeking

opportunities for Senator Ensign to intervene on the issue. Mr. Quinalty forwarded an email 

regarding FAA reauthorization to Mr. Hampton two days later, on April 18, 2008. The email 

suggests that Mr. Hampton had inquired about the issue earlier that week. All of this work on 

aviation issues suggests that, after Allegiant hired Mr. Hampton, he did not recuse himself from 

issues related to his future client as required by Senate Rules,13 but rather actively engaged on 

them where he had not before, essentially getting a head start on his lobbying career.

Mr. Hampton, because of his salary level, was required under Senate Rule 37 to notify 

the Ethics Committee within three days of commencing any negotiations for prospective private 

employment, and to immediately recuse himself from legislative matters affecting that 

prospective employer. Committee Staff and Special Counsel were unable to find evidence that 

Mr. Hampton ever filed such a notification.

On April 16, 2008, Senator Ensign announced Mr. Hampton s departure at an all-staff 

videoconference. Ms. Hampton s health and the need for Mr. Hampton to be closer to his family

were the reasons given for the departure.

On April 29, 2008, Ms. Walton contacted Elizabeth Horton, staff counsel for the Senate 

Ethics Committee, regarding Hampton s departure, writing I have an employee that is leaving

the office on May 1 and he has some questions regarding the job he is leaving for, and asked

Horton to draw distinctions between government relations and lobbying. Ms. Horton noted

that she would be available to speak to Mr. Hampton if he called her. There is no record of such 

a call, but the perceived distinction between government relations and lobbying persisted

throughout Mr. Hampton s interaction with Senator Ensign s office, and the staff s subsequent

explanation of that relationship once the contacts became public. 

Mr. Hampton s last day at the Senate was May 1, 2008; for purposes of the one-year 

post-employment restrictions codified at 18 U.S.C. § 207(c), Mr. Hampton was banned from 

contact with the Senate effective May 2, 2008. 

On May 6, 2008, the third business day of Mr. Hampton s post-employment period, Mr. 

Hampton emailed Quinalty regarding FAA reauthorization issues on behalf of Allegiant Air: 

David,

 13 See Rule 37.14(c)(3).
25

Maury Gallagher and Allegiant Air are a client of mine. So you 

now have a greater need to make more frequent trips to LV in 

order to best serve the Senator.

In the information I provided you last week the bottom line is 

Allegiant would like DOT to reconsider its position on fuel 

surcharge pricing. Today it is not allowed in the taxes and fees 

section of pricing and considered deceptive advertising practices if 

the price is not determined at the time a ticket is booked.

It is my understanding that Reid s office has seen the Docket I

provided you as well as Rockefeller s office. Can you please

confirm as well as gain an understanding as to their position on this 

issue. It is my understanding the Rockefeller [sic] is helpful in this 

matter.

Since FAA Reauthorization is not going to be the vehicle to 

address this issue we need to look for another way to possibly 

amend this issue. If not addressed the airline industry stands to 

lose billions as well as lose a significant number of carriers which 

will further impact consumer prices.

Hope this helps. Appears from my final leg time with the team that 

the Senator is interested in gaining a better nderstanding [sic] of 

this issue as while [sic]. 

Doug

(emphasis added).

Mr. Quinalty testified that in every way I could think of, [this email] struck me as

inappropriate and odd and something I should take note of. Mr. Quinalty immediately took the

email to Pam Thiessen. Ms. Thiessen testified that upon review of the email, she concluded that 

it look[ed] like he [Hampton] broke the law, broke the ethics ban. Ms. Thiessen had Mr. 

Quinalty print out multiple copies, and gave one to Mr. Mulvihill, with instructions to take it to 

the attention of the Ethics Committee. Ms. Thiessen then spoke with Mr. Lopez, and stated that 

on its face [the email] was illegal. So I told John Lopez this is illegal activity, that it s got to

stop, and that Doug Hampton was being cut off from the leg. [legislative] shop. Ms. Thiessen

then announced to the entire legislative staff that Mr. Hampton had broken the law and no one 

was to help him. Members of Senator Ensign s legislative staff recalled this announcement in

their testimony.

Mr. Lopez testified that Ms. Thiessen met with Mr. Lopez in Senator Ensign s legislative

suite, and was waving [the May 6, 2008 email] around, and that Ms. Thiessen stated

[Hampton] is lobbying [Quinalty] ... He should not be doing this. Lopez testified that he

responded by saying that [Hampton] should not be calling [Quinalty], and that he told Mr. Quinalty not to speak with Hampton. Mr. Lopez told Ms. Thiessen that he would handle
26

[Hampton] and asked Mr. Quinalty to forward any further contact from Doug Hampton directly

to Mr. Lopez.

Mr. Mulvihill testified that he referenced the May 6, 2008 email on a phone call with 

Matt Mesmer of the Senate Ethics Committee on May 8, 2008. Mr. Mulvihill took notes on the 

email itself. Those notes indicate that the Ethics Committee advised Mr. Mulvihill do not help

Mr. Hampton, and that while the office was not banned, it was instructed don t respond and

to refer to Ethics. The Ethics Committee notes from that same phone call indicate that Mr. Mesmer told Mr. Mulvihill that the office should not engage in a contact with someone within 

their ban period, should not aid in a violation of the rules. Mr. Mulvihill testified that he

informed Mr. Lopez and Ms. Thiessen of this advice, and advised Mr. Quinalty not to respond. 

Mr. Hampton sent an email to Mr. Quinalty on May 8, 2008, containing the identical text sent in 

the original May 6, 2008 email. Presumably, Mr. Hampton sent the email again because he had 

not received a response and wanted to ensure that Mr. Quinalty received it. There is no evidence 

that Mr. Quinalty ever responded, and Mr. Quinalty testified that he did not respond. 

Mr. Lopez testified that he disagreed with Mr. Mulvihill s assessment that there was to be

no contact between Mr. Hampton and Senator Ensign s staff. Mr. Lopez took the position that 

giving [Hampton] information was permitted under the rules, but admitted in his deposition

that this position was rationalizing his conduct. Mr. Lopez asked Mr. Mulvihill for further

clarification on the issue, and Mr. Mulvihill had a second conversation with Mr. Mesmer of the 

Senate Ethics Committee on May 14, 2008. Mr. Mesmer informed Mr. Mulvihill in that 

conversation that I told him if it is purely historical in nature, can answer. Should not discuss

present or future legislation/policy, and Mr. Mulvihill was told to seek guidance as each 

instance arises.

Mr. Lopez and Mr. Mulvihill agreed to disagree on the point, and Mr. Lopez promised

to bring Mr. Hampton s email to the attention of Senator Ensign. Mr. Lopez, while working on Capitol Hill, developed a close friendship with Brian 

Lewis, counsel to Senator McConnell. Mr. Lopez had a history of consulting with Mr. Lewis 

regarding a variety of issues related to working in the Senate, from ethical questions to ordinary 

office gossip. For example, Mr. Lopez spoke with Mr. Lewis after Mr. Hampton contacted Mr. 

Quinalty as noted above, because he was well-versed in changes to the post-employment 

restrictions. Mr. Lewis told Mr. Lopez that the post-employment restrictions were solid and

there s no gray area there. Notably, both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lopez testified that, despite this long-standing 

relationship, Mr. Lopez never told Mr. Lewis about the numerous contacts he later had with 

Mr. Hampton during Mr. Hampton s one-year ban period. Mr. Lewis testified that, to his 

knowledge, Mr. Lopez had put the kybosh on contacts from Mr. Hampton. Mr. Lopez also

testified that he kept his contacts with Mr. Hampton confidential:

SC: Why didn t you tell [Mr. Lewis]?

MR. LOPEZ: Because he would be alarmed.

SC: And because you knew what you were doing was wrong?
27

MR. LOPEZ: Correct, that I was in over my head in what I thought I could you 

know, that I could keep this all orderly in my mind. And I was just 

in way over my head.

SC: Orderly and under wraps so that nobody else would know that you 

were having the contacts other than the Senator, because this was 

you were supposed to keep Doug Hampton away from other 

people in the office and you were supposed to handle his contacts?

MR. LOPEZ: I would say orderly and compartmentalized, for 

sure. 

J. Senator Ensign and John Lopez Agree to Channel Mr. Hampton s Lobbying

Contacts Through Mr. Lopez

On May 8, 2008, after a morning staff meeting, Mr. Lopez approached Senator Ensign in 

his office regarding Mr. Hampton s emails to Mr. Quinalty. According to Mr. Lopez, the result

of this meeting was an understanding between Mr. Lopez and Senator Ensign that Mr. Hampton 

would continue to be allowed to lobby Senator Ensign s office, but to protect Senator Ensign s

reputation, Mr. Lopez would handle all contacts with Mr. Hampton. 

Specifically, Mr. Lopez began the May meeting by telling Senator Ensign, you should

know, [Hampton] is contacting Quinalty about Allegiant. Senator Ensign responded with a 

long, audible groan, which, according to Mr. Lopez, was an acknowledgement that that was

problematic. Mr. Lopez stated that the junior staff should not be responsible for determining if

his contacts violate the lobbying law. You know, he shouldn t be calling them. Senator Ensign

agreed. Mr. Lopez told Senator Ensign that Ms. Thiessen had taken the position that Doug 

Hampton should not contact the office at all; Senator Ensign stated that s [Thiessen] for you. Mr. Lopez then stated, look, in the future, just so this is handled properly, I will be in

charge of dealing with [Hampton] so he doesn t do this [contact other staff members]. According to Mr. Lopez, Senator Ensign responded animatedly:

[Y]eah, good. Yeah, yeah, yeah do that. Mr. Lopez explained that he had made clear to Senator Ensign that Mr. Hampton s

contact was a violation of both ethical rules and federal law, and that Senator Ensign 

acknowledged it was problematic. Mr. Lopez testified that:

It was very typical of John Ensign to you know, see no evil, hear

no evil. It was kind of one of those things where now he didn t

have to worry about the messiness of how this was done. That was 

that s what I was thinking about at the time. [Senator Ensign s] attitude was just he you know, my sense

was he just didn t want to hear about it, and I didn t take anything

to him because it was out of his hair, it was out of sight, out of

mind, and he didn t have to be bothered with it and I was, you

know, essentially taking the heat on his behalf.
28

I tried to just keep this away from [Senator Ensign] as much as

possible, and I viewed myself as being loyal and handling it on my

own, which is what I believe he expected of me.

(emphasis added)

Mr. Lopez explained that, despite his personal dislike of Mr. Hampton, he offered to help 

Mr. Hampton because keeping [Senator Ensign s] reputation intact and keeping [Hampton]

employed would probably mean that I would have to, you know, help him, I would have to help 

him in order for that to be successful. Mr. Lopez confirmed that Senator Ensign was well

aware of the fact that Mr. Lopez was helping Mr. Hampton with his client matters, but that he

did not want to know the details of that assistance. Mr. Lopez stated I don t know if [Senator 

Ensign] knew exactly what kind of communications [Hampton] was having with the office, and I 

just don t think he wanted to know. So that was my understanding of kind of our agreement at

the time.Mr. Lopez was not aware of the affair between Senator Ensign and Ms. Hampton when 

he discussed Mr. Hampton s contact with the Senate office, and in fact, Mr. Lopez did not

become aware of the affair until June 15, 2009 during the emergency staff meeting called by 

Senator Ensign.

Mr. Lopez explained that he felt intimidated to discuss the matter further due to Senator 

Ensign s loyalty to Mr. Hampton and the perception that Mr. Hampton was an untouchable

subject. He recalled an occasion on which a staff member, a former Marine Corps Colonel, had 

mentioned in his exit interview that Mr. Hampton was not well-liked among the staff, and 

Senator Ensign:

[gave] the colonel a look like don t you dare go there. And I

remember the colonel kind of squirming and the subject was 

dropped. But that really stuck in my mind, because I thought, you 

know, if a Marine Corps colonel who [Senator Ensign] respected 

without question can get dressed down by [Senator Ensign] for 

bringing up [Hampton s] name, then certainly it would most

definitely happen with me.

After Mr. Hampton s emails to Mr. Quinalty on May 6 and 8, 2008, Mr. Hampton never

contacted Mr. Quinalty again. 

In late June and early July, Mr. Hampton began to contact Mr. Lopez about two separate 

client matters: a pending bill regarding the transition to digital television signals, and 

enforcement action that the DOT had initiated against Allegiant Airlines based on certain fees 

added to tickets purchased online. Mr. Lopez testified that [Hampton] started calling me

directly. And in my mind, it was apparent to me that the Senator and [Hampton] had had a 

conversation about that, because my recollection is I did not. In fact, Mr. Hampton and Senator Ensign were speaking during May and June of 2008 

about Mr. Hampton s business. Mr. Hampton emailed Senator Ensign on May 27, 2008, and 
29

complained about the difficulty he was having finding clients; he noted that he would not draw a 

salary in May because he had not collected on invoices from his two clients. Mr. Hampton 

stated in that email that regardless of the circumstances, you ensured me that I would not be 

injured as a result of leaving your organization. Three days later, on May 30, 2008, Mr. Hampton again emailed Senator Ensign, thanked him for getting Allegiant Air as a client for 

November Inc., but expressed frustration with his loss of income, noting that the severance paid 

in April was not sufficient to compensate him for the loss of his position as administrative 

assistant: I know it s been more difficult getting clients and arranging contracts than you 

presented in March in the [Las Vegas] office with Slanker. Moreover, at this time, Senator

Ensign was continuing to pursue the affair with Cindy Hampton.

1. Senator Ensign and John Lopez Assist Allegiant Airlines Based on 

Mr. Hampton s Lobbying

On July 7, 2008, Mr. Hampton emailed Mr. Lopez to set up a teleconference regarding 

Allegiant Airlines. The next day, Mr. Hampton and Mr. Lopez spoke at 11:30 a.m. EDT. Mr. 

Hampton explained to Mr. Lopez that DOT was investigating Allegiant for the way it was

displaying on [its] Web site its ancillary fees. Mr. Hampton explained to Mr. Lopez that DOT

was seeking a settlement that would give [Allegiant] a huge fine. After speaking with Mr. Hampton, Mr. Lopez called Simon Gros, an assistant secretary for governmental affairs at DOT, 

to discuss the matter in preparation for a meeting with Senator Ensign. Mr. Gros informed Mr. 

Lopez that DOT was very concerned by Allegiant s pricing scheme, insofar as it charged a fee

for booking online above the price charged at the airport ticket counter.

In response to this teleconference with Mr. Gros, Mr. Lopez met with Senator Ensign and 

briefed him on the issue. Mr. Lopez made clear that he had learned of the issue from Mr. 

Hampton. Mr. Lopez explained that DOT took a dim view of Allegiant s pricing, and that this

was not only the opinion of a civil servant, but of a political appointee. Mr. Lopez testified that 

Senator Ensign became very animated and said no, no, no, you don t understand this. Clearly, this person [Gros] doesn t understand this issue. He seemed to know a lot more about the issue 

than I [Lopez] did at that point. Senator Ensign expressed a desire to call Secretary of

Transportation Mary Peters about the issue, and Lopez concurred. Mr. Lopez noted that 

[Senator Ensign] was very well versed on this issue, and that can only happen through a couple

of ways I assumed at the time it was a combination of him speaking with Maury Gallagher and

also with Doug Hampton. On July 8, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. EDT, Mr. Lopez informed Mr. Hampton that Senator 

Ensign intended to call Secretary Peters that afternoon. Mr. Lopez also explained that Senator 

Ensign had, by this time, spoken with Allegiant Airlines CEO Maury Gallagher. Three minutes 

later, Mr. Hampton responded, thanking Mr. Lopez for making the call happen so quickly. That evening, Mr. Lopez, Ms. Jackson, and Ms. Roberts worked to schedule a teleconference 

between Senator Ensign and Secretary Peters; apparently, scheduling conflicts moved the call to 

the next day, July 9, 2008.

On the evening of July 8, 2008, Senator Ensign and Mr. Hampton spoke about the 

Allegiant Air issue by email. Senator Ensign inquired of Mr. Hampton s job prospects with
30

Newcom and P2SA (two companies that interviewed Mr. Hampton at Senator Ensign s

recommendation); Mr. Hampton responded and stated:

Really appreciate you jumping on the call with [Gallagher]. This 

deal with getting Secretary Peters to back of [sic] Allegiant for a 

period is really important to their health, given the severe issues 

facing the industry. We are asking Peters to reschedule an 

expedited meeting called for this Friday until Allegiant [sic].

The next morning, July 9, 2008, Mr. Lopez emailed Mr. Hampton to confirm that Senator 

Ensign would be speaking with Secretary Peters at 3:00 p.m. EDT. Mr. Hampton responded:

Ok thank you. With that said will you make sure the Senator 

knows this from Allegiant. 

[DOT s enforcement action] is unacceptable and completely wrong

from [Allegiant s] perspective. Action (Consent Order) should not 

precede the meeting to discuss the issue. Allegiant firmly believes 

it is not acting deceitfully in it [sic] Web business and would like 

the time and proper form [sic] to table the issue.

If DOT preceded [sic] with order then Allegiant will not sign and 

retain legal counsel to fight issue and make this a public [sic] 

hoping it has the full support of the Senator. DOT moving forward 

is not acting in a fair manner with this issue from Allegiants [sic] 

perspective.

The hope would be that the Senator s discussion with the Secretary

causes her to ask her organization to give this due process and 

cease on the order until proper meetings and discussion can 

prevail. Again this industry and this airline are dealing with very 

significant issues at the moment and DOT should be sensitive and 

supportive. It is unreasonable (fast tracking) to demand a decision 

without due process. 

Look forward to hearing from you after the call[.]

(emphasis added).

Mr. Lopez responded that he agreed and that he had attempted to book a flight on 

Allegiant s website, and had found the relevant convenience fee clearly marked and noticed. At 3:00 p.m. EDT on July 9, 2008, Senator Ensign had a teleconference with Secretary 

Peters. According to Mr. Lopez, Senator Ensign did not need any additional briefing on the 

issue prior to the call, given his knowledge of the issue.
31

On the morning of July 10, 2008, Mr. Lopez emailed Mr. Hampton to set up a time to 

speak by phone. Mr. Lopez intended to set up a teleconference between enforcement officials at 

DOT and principals at Allegiant. Such a teleconference took place Friday, July 11, 2008, 

between Nick Lowry (DOT Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings Senior Attorney), 

Mr. Gros, other DOT officials, and Messrs. Gallagher, Harrison, and Lopez. Mr. Lopez could 

not recall whether Mr. Hampton listened to the call, but recalled that he did not say anything. 

Mr. Lopez attempted to moderate the discussion, and mentioned that the proposed fine was, in 

his view, a little onerous. Mr. Lopez cannot recall the dollar amount discussed. Mr. Lopez

also requested certain documents referencing similarly situated airlines, on suspicion that this 

enforcement proceeding arose from complaints by Allegiant s competitors. After the teleconference, Mr. Lowry emailed Allegiant s counsel Aaron Goerlich on July

15, 2008, and made an offer of settlement for the enforcement proceeding: Allegiant would need 

to change its web fare display (Mr. Lowry drafted and included proposed changes to the

language and display), and would need to agree to a consent order including substantial civil

penalties, and further discussions with DOT regarding other aspects of Allegiant s advertising

and pricing schemes. Mr. Goerlich forwarded the proposal to Messrs. Harrison and Gallagher. 

Mr. Harrison, in turn, forwarded Mr. Lowry s proposal to additional Allegiant personnel as well

as Mr. Hampton. Mr. Harrison made clear that the proposal was not acceptable, and that Mr. 

Goerlich was drafting a letter to provide to Mr. Lopez so he can meet with DOT General

Counsel (who is the boss of DOT s Enforcement Head) and approach reconciliation from a top /

down perspective. Mr. Harrison noted that the plan would be for Lopez to meet with Gen

Counsel either tomorrow or at the latest on Thursday given the quick response deadline 

imposed by DOT Enforcement Office. Mr. Harrison s inclusion of Mr. Hampton on this email, as opposed to a direct email to Mr. Lopez, indicates that Mr. Harrison expected Mr. Hampton to 

liaison with Mr. Lopez regarding these action items.

Mr. Hampton made contact with Senator Ensign s office later that afternoon, by

forwarding Mr. Harrison s email to Mr. Lopez, and noting that Mr. Lopez would have a letter the

next morning. Mr. Lopez testified that the letter was something he had requested, as a CYA

letter to show that the request for assistance came from Allegiant itself rather than Mr. Hampton

directly:

if I was going to be helping Allegiant and [Hampton] was in the 

mix, that really, you know, it was an important constituent, but, 

you know, I really needed that letter, not just [Hampton s] word

through e-mails that this was an issue Because, again, 

[Hampton] was obviously doing stuff that was wrong, and I wanted 

to I wanted to help Allegiant to do that properly, and be able to

say that yes, this airline company, not just Doug Hampton, but this 

airline company, they contacted us for help.

(emphasis added)

While Mr. Lopez at the time rationalized that he was just guiding Mr. Hampton and 

Allegiant to DOT, he testified:
32

[S]itting here today, it s painfully clear to me that that was you 

know, we were being influenced to make a favorable outcome for 

Allegiant, there s no question. (emphasis added)

On July 17, 2008, Mr. Lopez emailed Mr. Gros, expressed Allegiant s displeasure with

the recent teleconference, and requested a second call between Mr. Lopez, Mr. Gros, and DOT 

General Counsel to discuss the issue. Mr. Lopez recognized that this was a rare level of

intervention into executive branch business. Mr. Lopez did indeed have such a call, and wrote to 

Mr. Hampton at 2:26 p.m. EDT to report on the outcome:

Called [Gros] and jacked him up to high heaven. He repeated what 

we discussed earlier that it was how this was being disclosed on

website, not convenience fees. E-mailed him the take-it-or-leave-it 

e-mail from Nick Lowry and said this guy is a little tyrant. Will 

fill Ensign in this afternoon.

Mr. Lopez testified that this message was an exaggeration of his tone, to let

[Hampton] think that I had done more than I really did. Because I personally liked [Gros]. The 

conversation I had with [Gros] is that, you know, you basically have some bureaucrats running 

amok and you work for the Bush administration, and they re taking a very antibusiness position 

here. Later that day, Mr. Hampton forwarded to Mr. Lopez Allegiant s counter-proposal for 

settlement, and stated [w]ould sure like [Gros ] help in ensuring that their organization take a

different road with Allegiant and back of [sic] timetable and any penalties or fines. Mr. Lopez

responded to Messrs. Hampton, Gallagher, and Harrison, I agree and told [Gros] that some folks

needed to be taken to the woodshed [Gros] was pretty frantic when I got off the phone with

him. Trust me that I know how much pressure to apply and when. Both Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Harrison responded, thanking Lopez for his help.

The next day, Mr. Lopez emailed Mr. Hampton and requested a teleconference on 

Monday, July 21, 2008, noting that he had screamed himself hoarse with those imbeciles, and

that he was too mad right now. Mr. Hampton forwarded the email to Mr. Harrison and Mr. Gallagher, who agreed to hold a teleconference on Monday. According to Mr. Lopez, at this 

point, Mr. Hampton desired increasing involvement from Senator Ensign, and requested that Mr. 

Lopez have Senator Ensign call Secretary Peters again, as well as contact White House adviser 

Karl Rove and inform him of the issue. Mr. Lopez thought this was a stupid idea, and was in

this email attempting to show Mr. Hampton that he was doing what I could. On July 29, 2008, Mr. Lopez emailed Mr. Hampton and explained that he had received 

the documents he originally requested from DOT copies of every consent order relating to

Internet advertising they have entered into with various airlines since 2001. On August 5, 2008, Mr. Lopez emailed Mr. Hampton regarding these materials: there is so much stuff I will need to

FedEx to you, probably best to send to [Harrison s] attention. Cool? Best address to FedEx?
33

Mr. Lopez confirmed that he intended to send these documents to Mr. Harrison s attention to

avoid having a communication with Mr. Hampton, especially if it s with office funds. Mr. Lopez recalled the issue began to disappear from his vantage point around the end of 

July 2008, and could not recall details of the resolution of the matter. Allegiant settled with 

DOT via consent order on September 15, 2008.14 The consent order included a fine of $50,000, 

of which only $10,000 was to be due and paid in cash; $15,000 of the fine was offset for 

expenditures related to reprogramming the website to address the pricing issue, and the 

remaining $25,000 would only be imposed if Allegiant violated the consent order. Mr. Lopez 

testified that he was keeping Senator Ensign informed throughout his involvement in the 

enforcement proceeding.

Throughout the summer of 2008, Mr. Hampton contacted Senator Ensign s office on a

variety of legislative matters pertaining to Allegiant and other Nevada individuals. For example, 

on September 11 and 12, 2008, Mr. Hampton contacted Mr. Lopez regarding the clearance of 

international flights through customs at McCarran Airport. On November 6, 2008, Mr. Hampton 

emailed Mr. Lopez from his Allegiant email address regarding the expiration of certain tax cuts.

2. John Lopez Assists Mr. Hampton s Client Entravision

In June 2008, Mr. Hampton requested that Mr. Lopez provide him information on the 

DTV Border Fix Act, intended to provide relief to television stations on the Mexican border from 

a pending switch from analog to digital signal. On June 18, 2008, Mr. Lopez forwarded to Mr. 

Hampton a write-up on the Act prepared by Quinalty. Mr. Lopez, in that email, tried to provide 

additional sources of information on the bill, but promised to let [Hampton] know if/when it is

going to move. On June 19, 2008, Mr. Lopez forwarded an article from Roll Call discussing 

related telecommunications issues. Mr. Lopez updated Mr. Hampton on the Act s progress on

July 15, July 22, and July 23, 2008, explaining that there were anonymous holds preventing the 

Act from being passed by unanimous consent. The Act passed with an amendment on August 1, 

2008; on August 6, 2008, Mr. Lopez emailed Mr. Hampton to notify him of the Act s passage

and the substance of the amendment.

At the time of these communications, Mr. Hampton had solicited and received a limited 

contract with Entravision, a Spanish-language media company, with respect to this issue. On 

July 23, 2008, Mr. Hampton emailed Senator Ensign:

Just wanted to make you aware I signed a short term deal with 

Entravision. Lopez has been most helpful. Don t need anything

just thought I should let you know.

(emphasis added).

Mr. Hampton also worked with Entravision s counsel, Barry Friedman, with respect to 

the Act. Mr. Lopez testified that he had no conversations with Senator Ensign about Entravision 

or helping Mr. Hampton regarding the Act.

 14 See Allegiant Air, LLC, Docket OST 2008-0031, Order 2008-9-18 (DOT Sept. 15, 2008).
34

3. Mr. Hampton Lobbies Senator Ensign s Office on Behalf of

NV Energy

On November 10, 2008, Mr. Hampton emailed Mr. Lopez to discuss the Ely Energy 

Center Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS ). Mr. Lopez testified that this was a

legislative issue for Senator Ensign since 2006. NV Energy had proposed the construction of a 

coal-fired power plant on public lands in Nevada; the plant would be accompanied with corridors 

for carrying electricity, as well as a water pumping system to transfer water from White Pine 

County to Las Vegas. The next day, Mr. Hampton and Mr. Lopez spoke by phone; Mr. Hampton 

asked for Senator Ensign s assistance in urging the Department of Interior to publish the Draft

EIS in the Federal Register in a timely fashion, because only a few months remained in the Bush 

presidency, and the Obama White House was likely to be far less favorable to a coal-fired power 

plant to which Senator Harry Reid was opposed. Mr. Lopez thought this call from Mr. Hampton 

was odd, because NV Energy had typically relied on lobbyist Marcus Faust as its advocate on 

federal issues.

Nevertheless, Mr. Lopez contacted Ms. Allmon and told her that Mr. Hampton had 

contacted the office regarding the Ely Energy Center; he requested that she develop a memo for 

Senator Ensign on the issue, which she submitted on November 13, 2008. Based on that memo, 

Senator Ensign, along with Congressman Dean Heller, sent a letter to Secretary of the Interior 

Dirk Kempthorne urging him to approve publication of the Draft [EIS] for NV Energy s

proposed Ely Energy Center. On November 21, 2008, Mr. Lopez emailed Ms. Allmon and Mr. Chatwin; Mr. Lopez 

asked Ms. Allmon to call Mr. Hampton and fill[] him in regarding the EIS, and make sure he

gets letter and press release we sent. Ms. Allmon testified that she thought Mr. Lopez was

fielding a random call from Mr. Hampton.15

The same day, NV Energy officials discussed Mr. Hampton s involvement; Tony

Sanchez, NV Energy s Senior Vice President for Strategy, Policy, and External Affairs, wrote

that NV Energy had requested Mr. Hampton to see if [Senator Ensign] could soft sell to

Interior our getting the draft EIS asap with the outgoing administration. According to Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Hampton believed the draft EIS would be issued Monday, November 24, 2008, 

based on conversations between Mr. Hampton and Mr. Lopez. Starla Lacy, an NV Energy

employee, wrote in response, Top secret Evidently Ensign and Heller sent a letter to interior 

so much for a soft inquiry! Based on these communications, NV Energy expected that

Hampton would seek intervention by Senator Ensign on the issue, but did not expect that Senator 

Ensign would write a formal letter.

November 24 came and went without the issuance of a Draft EIS. On December 12, 

2008, Mr. Hampton emailed Mr. Lopez, stating, Hate to bring you back in the loop on

this certainly no fault of [Allmon s] but still no release on this request from DOI. Can you

shed some light or hope that this is going to happen? Mr. Lopez responded that he had been

pounding Interior and can t figure out why this hasn t come out.

 15 Committee Staff, who conducted Allmon s deposition, expressed doubts regarding Ms. Allmon s

credibility on this point to Special Counsel. 
35

The same day, Ms. Allmon emailed Mr. Lopez and asked if she should reach out to Mr. 

Hampton regarding NV Energy. Mr. Lopez agreed. Four days later, December 16, 2008, Dick 

Bouts at Department of Interior emailed Ms. Allmon and Mr. Lopez to confirm that the Draft 

EIS would be published either that week or next, and attached a copy of the signed submission. 

Again, Ms. Allmon asked Mr. Lopez whether she should share this information with Mr. 

Hampton, and Lopez told her to do so. Ms. Allmon could offer no explanation for these 

communications.

Mr. Lopez testified that the issuance of the Draft EIS was a major goal of the Senator s

to get this done. Mr. Hampton s inquiries on this issue served as a reminder to Mr. Lopez that

this was a priority. Mr. Lopez could not recall informing Senator Ensign of Hampton s

involvement on this issue.

4. Mr. Hampton Requests Help in Developing Relationships Between 

Allegiant Airlines and Federal Officials

On August 15, 2008, Mr. Hampton accepted an offer of employment with Allegiant 

Airlines as Vice President of Government Affairs. 

At some point in early 2009, according to Senator Ensign s journal entries, Mr. Hampton

and Senator Ensign had a chance encounter with each other in a parking lot in Las Vegas and 

then had a subsequent telephone call. On January 22, 2009, likely after the meeting in the 

parking lot, Mr. Hampton emailed Lopez regarding Allegiant and our desire to include

[Gallagher] in as many discussions, round tables, and committee issues as possible as it relates to 

Aviation. Mr. Hampton made specific requests: (1) that Senator Ensign arrange a meeting 

between Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Allegiant officials for introductory 

purposes; and (2) that Senator Ensign broker a similar meeting with the as-yet-unnamed FAA 

Administrator. Mr. Hampton stated:

I have discussed these [requests] with [Senator Ensign] and he is 

aware I am coming to you.

(emphasis added).

Mr. Lopez assumed at that time that Senator Ensign and Mr. Hampton were still on good 

terms, as he was still unaware of the affair.

In response to this email, Mr. Lopez told Senator Ensign that [Gallagher] and

[Hampton] and others in Allegiant were going to be coming out to Washington and that I thought 

it was I told him that I said to [Hampton] that I thought it was a good idea, you know, that 

you know, that he should do the meeting with LaHood. Mr. Lopez recalled that, after receiving

the email from Hampton, that he was comfortable going to the Senator on this. Senator Ensign

placed a telephone call to Secretary LaHood on January 29, 2009 to request that he take a 

meeting with Allegiant officials; Secretary LaHood agreed. 

After that call, on January 30, 2009, Mr. Lopez emailed Ms. Roberts to ask her to follow 

up on behalf of Senator Ensign with Secretary LaHood s office regarding a meeting between 

Gallagher and Secretary LaHood. Ms. Roberts had difficulty contacting Secretary LaHood s
36

office, but eventually confirmed a meeting for March 11, 2009. Mr. Lopez also contacted Bob 

Herbert, Senior Policy Advisor for Senator Reid, regarding a meeting between Senator Reid, 

Senator Durbin, and Mr. Gallagher when Mr. Gallagher would be in town to meet with Secretary 

LaHood. Mr. Lopez informed Mr. Hampton the next day that Mr. Herbert was working on 

arranging such a meeting. Finally, Mr. Lopez set up a lunch in the Senate Dining Room on 

March 11, 2009 with himself, Senator Ensign, and Messrs. Hampton, Gallagher, and Harrison.

While Mr. Lopez at the time rationalized that he was just guiding Mr. Hampton and 

Allegiant to DOT, he testified:

[S]itting here today, it s painfully clear to me that that was you 

know, we were being influenced to make a favorable outcome for 

Allegiant, there s no question. (emphasis added)

Despite Mr. Hampton s statement to Mr. Lopez in January that he had spoken with 

Senator Ensign about Allegiant and raising its profile in Washington, a number of staffers 

testified that Senator Ensign expressed surprise when notified that Mr. Hampton would be 

accompanying him, Messrs. Lopez, Harrison and Gallagher to lunch on March 11, 2009. 

Senator Ensign also approached Lopez at this time and asked if Mr. Hampton had been lobbying 

other Senators. Mr. Lopez told Senator Ensign that he had heard that Mr. Hampton had visited 

Senator Thune s office. Senator Ensign looked surprised, and Mr. Lopez testified that both he

and Senator Ensign were surprised that Mr. Hampton was publicly lobbying other Senate offices. 

Mr. Lopez confirmed that Senator Ensign s surprise was limited to the fact that Hampton was

lobbying other offices, not the fact that Mr. Hampton had lobbied Senator Ensign s own office. Prior to the lunch, Messrs. Hampton, Gallagher, and Harrison arrived at Senator Ensign s

office. Mr. Lopez asked Mr. Chatwin to escort the three men to the dining room, which he did 

via tram. At the lunch, Mr. Lopez sat between Senator Ensign and Hampton. Senator Ensign 

asked how Allegiant s meetings were going, and Mr. Harrison and Mr. Gallagher responded that

the meeting with the Secretary had gone well. Senator Ensign discussed cycling, his new hobby, 

and asked for Mr. Gallagher to sponsor a cycling event in the Las Vegas area. Mr. Lopez 

recalled that Mr. Hampton was silent during the lunch. According to Senator Ensign s journal, he recalls having lunch with Mr. Hampton in the Senate Dining Room and that it was a very

nice time. Other attendees at the March 11, 2009 lunch had a distinctly different recollection of 

the tone of that lunch, namely, that Senator Ensign and Mr. Hampton were clearly not on good 

terms.

The next day, March 12, 2009, Messrs. Hampton, Gallagher, and Harrison attended a 

Welcome to Washington breakfast hosted by Senators Ensign and Reid in the Lyndon Baines 

Johnson room in the Capitol building.

From February through May 2009, Mr. Hampton contacted Mr. Lopez and other 

employees of Senator Ensign s office regarding a variety of other issues for Allegiant. On

February 6, 2009, Mr. Chatwin forwarded an article on aviation to Mr. Hampton at the request of 

Mr. Lopez; when Mr. Hampton responded with a question about card check for unions,
37

Chatwin asked Lopez how to respond. Mr. Lopez promised that he would handle the matter, and 

emailed Mr. Hampton asking him to call regarding the card check issue. On February 18, 2009, Mr. Hampton emailed Mr. Lopez and thanked him for all the help and good work you

provide me. On March 25, 2009, Mr. Lopez and Mr. Hampton emailed regarding the Family

and Medical Leave Act. On April 1, 2009, and April 21, 2009, Mr. Lopez, in response to Mr. 

Hampton s request, sent information to Mr. Hampton regarding restrictions on travel to Cuba. 

On April 22, 2009, in response to Mr. Hampton s request, Mr. Lopez sent information to Mr. Hampton regarding carbon monoxide regulations.

Mr. Hampton s one-year ban period concluded on May 1, 2009.

K. Mr. Hampton Hires a Lawyer and Raises Damage Claims; Senator Coburn 

Handles Negotiations with Senator Ensign

According to Mr. Hampton, by late Spring of 2009, he was tired of living a lie. He was

also concerned that he had lied to his current employer, Maury Gallagher. Mr. Hampton became 

concerned that his relationship with Senator Ensign was beginning to change, and he began to 

feel some distance between them.

Mr. Hampton sought legal counsel. He was referred to Las Vegas attorney Daniel 

Albregts. Mr. Albregts, a former Public Defender who primarily handled criminal matters but 

also handled some civil matters, met Mr. Hampton in April 2009. According to Mr. Albregts, 

Mr. Hampton came in and told a jaw dropping story, and asked him to be his counsel to 

determine whether he had a cause of action against Senator Ensign. Mr. Hampton was interested 

in securing enough money to relocate and start over.

Mr. Albregts did not know who to contact on Senator Ensign s behalf, so he called the

Senator directly. After he introduced himself, there was a pregnant pause. Senator Ensign let

out a sigh and said why did he have to get lawyers involved? Senator Ensign said he would get

back to Mr. Albregts, but did not do so.

Mr. Hampton then told Mr. Albregts that Senator Coburn was expecting his call to 

continue the negotiations. Senator Coburn told Mr. Hampton that he wanted to get involved with 

the issue. Mr. Albregts recalled that the communications he had with Senator Coburn occurred 

the week before Memorial Day 2009. Mr. Albregts understood that Senator Coburn was going 

to act as an intermediary between Senator Ensign and Mr. Hampton.

Mr. Albregts spoke with Senator Coburn on three occasions, all on May 22, 2009. Mr. 

Albregts first had a five-minute call with Senator Coburn. Senator Coburn said that he wanted

to help Doug out. Senator Coburn also stated that he liked Doug Hampton, felt bad about what

happened, and he was glad that they retained counsel to resolve this issue. Senator Coburn told 

Mr. Albregts to have Mr. Hampton tell him what he thinks he needs to start over, and Senator 

Coburn would then take that to the Ensigns.

Mr. Albregts had an eight-minute call with Senator Coburn approximately an hour later. 

Senator Coburn recalled that he was on his tractor at his home mowing his lawn at the time, and 

was annoyed to receive the call in the middle of that task. Mr. Albregts tried to get a ballpark 

estimate from Senator Coburn as to the amount he would be comfortable with. Mr. Albregts 
38

proposed $8 million based on a document Doug Hampton prepared. According to Mr. Albregts, 

Senator Coburn said that the figure was absolutely ridiculous. Senator Coburn then stated that

the Ensigns should buy the Hamptons home because it is so close to the Ensigns, and the 

Hamptons should receive an amount of money above and beyond that to start over, buy a new 

home, have some living money while they were looking for new employment, and possibly some 

seed money to send the children off to college. Senator Coburn stated that that s what I ve

thought from day one would be fair, but said that $8 million was nowhere close to a reasonable

figure. Senator Coburn told Mr. Albregts to figure out what those amounts would be, and call 

him back.

Mr. Albregts then spoke with Mr. Hampton, and asked him how much it would cost to 

get the house paid for, and how much he needed above that figure to get started somewhere new. 

Mr. Hampton then came back with some figures, and estimated $1.2 million for the home, and 

another $1.6 million to get started somewhere new. Mr. Albregts called Senator Coburn back for 

the final time with this revised figure on the same day in a five-minute call. Per Mr. Albregts, 

Senator Coburn responded by stating that okay, that s what I had in mind and I think is fair

and said he would take the figure to the Ensigns. Mr. Albregts later heard from Mr. Hampton 

that Senator Ensign refused the revised offer. 

Senator Coburn testified that he told Mr. Hampton s attorney, Mr. Albregts, in May 2009 

that he was not the negotiator, and it s got to be something apropos. Senator Coburn also

testified that he did not propose any resolution, but was simply going to pass information to 

Senator Ensign. Mr. Albregts testified that Senator Coburn took an active role in the 

negotiations between Mr. Hampton and Senator Ensign, and this role included proposing specific 

resolutions.

L. Senator Ensign Discloses the Affair to His Staff and the Public in June 2009

1. The Senator Speaks of Making the Hamptons Whole

After Senator Ensign refused the revised settlement offer, Mr. Hampton decided to take 

the matter to the media. Mr. Hampton wrote a letter to Megyn Kelly at Fox News on June 11, 

2009 in which he disclosed the affair and sought a meeting with the television station. On June 

15, 2009, Mr. Hampton forwarded a copy of the letter in an email to former Senator Rick 

Santorum, and asked Senator Santorum for help with the matter. Senator Santorum forwarded 

Mr. Hampton s email and the letter to Senator Ensign at his Gmail address that evening at 

approximately 10:20 p.m.

Senator Ensign immediately called an emergency staff meeting in the late evening of 

June 15, 2009 that lasted until approximately 3:00 a.m. on June 16, 2009. During that staff 

meeting, Senator Ensign disclosed the affair, and also disclosed that he had made a severance 

payment to the Hamptons. Senator Ensign stated that he would be making a public statement the 

next day in Las Vegas regarding the affair.

Several staff members who attended the meeting recalled the use of the term severance or 

the concept of severance. Senator Ensign s now former Communications Director Rebecca

Fisher testified that Senator Ensign said that he tried to he wanted to make [Hampton] whole, 
39

that he had calculated three months of pay for [Hampton] and then three months of pay for [Ms. 

Hampton] and had gotten a total, and then he d also taken into account what health insurance

would cost for the family, and that he had given them money to cover that. Ms. Fisher also 

recalled that Senator Ensign stated that the payment was an effort to make them whole, and

that he was trying to be fair ... trying to make sure they were taken care of after [Hampton] left

the office. Ms. Fisher recalled that Senator Ensign wanted to focus on the payment and the 

recent demands by Hampton, but Ms. Fisher believed that the media would focus as much 

attention to the severance payment made to the Hamptons as the affair itself.

Senator Ensign s now former Legislative Director stated that during the staff meeting, 

Senator Ensign referred to the payment to the Hamptons as severance, and the payment included 

COBRA payments. Specifically, [h]e [Senator Ensign] said he paid severance to the Hamptons, and he talked about a number of different things it included, including enough money for 

COBRA benefits. Senator Ensign later told his Legislative Director during an individual

meeting that he made the payment to the Hamptons because he still loved Ms. Hampton and 

wanted her and her family to be taken care of.

Senator Ensign s then current Deputy Chief of Staff recalled that during the staff

meeting, Senator Ensign stated that he gave the Hamptons money out of his own pocket for a

few months he said for a few months to cover his salary and COBRA payments. Additionally, in an email written from John Lopez to Senator Ensign the day after the 

public statement of the affair, Mr. Lopez stated that the Senator should speak with his attorneys 

before we start answering questions about severance [quotes in original] and other items so

you don t put yourself in a bad position. In addition to staff testimony regarding Senator Ensign s description of the payment

during the June 15, 2009 staff meeting, other witnesses provided testimony regarding the 

severance payment. One of Senator Ensign s long-standing spiritual advisors spoke with Senator 

Ensign about the payment to the Hamptons, and Senator Ensign stated I m going to give him as

much severance as possible. Additionally, Mr. Slanker heard about the severance from Senator 

Ensign, Darlene Ensign, and Mr. Hampton. Mr. Slanker recalled that Senator Ensign stated that 

we gave Cindy $100,000 severance to help them. 2. Senator Ensign Makes Journal Entries Describing the Payment to the 

Hamptons

Senator Ensign maintained an electronic journal, which was made available to Special 

Counsel and Committee Staff. One of the Senator s journal entries described the lead-up to the 

June 16, 2009 public statement, including the affair and the severance payment made to the 

Hamptons. Senator Ensign s journal, entitled June Journal 2009, explained that following the

discovery of the affair, the Senator wanted to help the Hampton family as they transitioned to a 

new life. The Senator wrote about a discussion he had with his father about the payment:

June 5-20 Public Confession

Last year I had [sic] affair with Cindy. It lasted on and off from 

December of 2007 till early around the first week in August 2008. 
40

Doug or Darlene had caught us several times and finally all agreed 

that Doug and Cindy would have to leave my employ....

I did not want the government to have to pay any severance pay or 

the campaign. So I was going to help them transition into their 

new life. I went to my dad and he said he would rather give them 

some money as a gift to help them out. He had Bruce write the 

check for about 100k.

3. Senator Ensign Makes Draft Public Statements Referring to a 

Severance Payment

Senator Ensign prepared drafts of his public statement on June 16, 2009. Senator Ensign 

prepared the initial draft of the public statement on an airplane from Washington, D.C. to Las 

Vegas and attempted to email the draft to Mr. Mazzola, Senator Ensign s former

communications director. Mr. Mazzola did not receive the draft statement due to technical 

difficulties, and the Senator and Mr. Mazzola later re-wrote the statement. A copy of the 

Senator s initial draft statement, thought to be deleted, was later recovered. In the first version of the draft statement, written by Senator Ensign and dated June 16, 

2009 at 7:57 a.m., Senator Ensign wrote that he paid severance to Doug and Cynthia Hampton

following the affair and the unsustainable work atmosphere that had developed as a result. Significantly, Senator Ensign sent the draft to Mr. Mazzola with a direction to send this only on

gmail to others for comments. This direction was consistent with Senator Ensign s policy to

send emails to staff on Gmail so the documents would not be transmitted through Senate servers.

In this draft, the Senator explained that the payment was to help in the Hamptons

transition after leaving the Senator s employment:

Because of the affair, an unsustainable work atmosphere had 

developed and it became apparent they could no longer work for 

me. To help them transition to new work, we gave them what was 

the equivalent of 6 months severance pay and 1 year of health 

insurance expense personally, not out of campaign or official 

accounts. (emphasis added).

A second draft prepared by Senator Ensign, dated June 16, 2009 at 1:18 p.m., similarly 

referred to the payment of 6 months severance pay and 1 year of health insurance expense. In

both of the Senator s versions, he wrote that the payments were made personally and not out of

campaign or official accounts. Neither draft statement mentioned Michael or Sharon Ensign or 

the Ensign Family Trust; nor did the statements mention that the Hamptons children were also

payees.

Mr. Mazzola forwarded the draft to key Ensign staff members, including John Lopez, 

Rebecca Fisher, Sari Mann, Pam Thiessen, and Jason Mulvihill, via email at 2:22 p.m. on 
41

June 16, 2009. This version of the draft statement also described the 2008 payment as 

severance :

Last year, my wife and I decided to give what would be the 

equivalent of six months severance to each of them out of our 

personal funds. Let me be clear: These were strictly personal 

funds. This was to get them transitioned into new work.

This draft stated that Senator Ensign and his wife made the payment. As in the earlier, 

deleted draft statements, the draft did not mention the involvement of the Senator s parents. 4. Based on Advice from Senator Ensign s Attorney, His Staff Removes

All References to Payments in the Final Public Statement

Senator Ensign s staff worked to revise the draft statement. About one hour before the 

Senator s planned press conference, Ms. Fisher conferred with attorney Chris Gober, counsel to

Senator Ensign and his campaign, regarding the draft statement. Mr. Gober advised the Senator 

to remove all references to the payment of severance. Mr. Gober further emailed his concerns to 

Ms. Fisher, explaining that:

[t]he statement, as currently written, raises a host of 

potential criminal issues for the Senator. The language 

draws a direct connection between the affair, the 

termination of the staffers, and the severance payment. Although the statement attempts to legitimize the reason for 

the payment, it s awfully odd that he made the payments

from personal funds .If this statement doesn t get the

attention of the U.S. Attorney s Office, then nothing will. (emphasis added).

This document was withheld as privileged by Senator Ensign s attorney for over eighteen

months on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim of attorney-client privilege. The email was sent 

to a shared Gmail address for Senator Ensign s then Communications Director and her husband, not to Senator Ensign. Senator Ensign did not abandon his claim of privilege until February 

2011 after receiving a letter from the Committee challenging his claims of privilege. Ms. Fisher 

contacted the Senator by phone to inform him of Mr. Gober s concerns. Ms. Fisher understood

that Senator Ensign had already spoken with Mr. Gober, disagreed with his counsel, and wanted 

to proceed with the reference to money. As a result of Mr. Gober s advice, Ms. Fisher removed

all references to the exchange of money in the draft statement, and forwarded the revised draft to 

the Senator with copies to his staff. Unlike the earlier drafts, the revised statement made no 

reference to any payments made to the Hamptons or to Senator Ensign s desire to help transition

the Hamptons into new work. 

The final statement delivered to the press similarly omitted the reference to the severance 

payment made to the Hampton family.
42

5. Mr. Hampton Reveals in Public That the Senator Made Payments to 

the Hamptons

After the public disclosure of the affair, Mr. Hampton was interviewed by Jon Ralston, a 

local journalist in Las Vegas. The interview was televised.16 In the interview, Mr. Hampton 

stated that his wife received more than $25,000 from Senator Ensign when she left his 

employment. This statement stimulated the media s inquiries into the specifics of the payment. The Senator first publicly acknowledged that the Hamptons received a payment of 

$96,000 in a July 9, 2009 public statement released by his attorney, Paul Coggins.17 Although 

the Senator acknowledged that a payment had been made to the Hampton family, for the first 

time the statement described the payment as a gift from the Senator s parents to the Hampton

family, as opposed to a severance payment made by the Senator and his wife. The statement 

further stated that the payment to the Hamptons was consistent with a pattern of generosity by

the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others. Statement on behalf of Sen. John Ensign:

In April 2008, Senator John Ensign s parents each made gifts to

Doug Hampton, Cindy Hampton, and two of their children in the 

form of a check totaling $96,000. Each gift was limited to $12,000. 

The payments were made as gifts, accepted as gifts and complied 

with tax rules governing gifts.

After the Senator told his parents about the affair, his parents 

decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of longtime family friends during a difficult time. The gifts are consistent 

with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons 

and others.

None of the gifts came from campaign or official funds nor were 

they related to any campaign or official duties. Senator Ensign has 

complied with all applicable laws and Senate ethics rules.

Paul Coggins

Fish & Richardson P.C.

Counsel for Senator John Ensign

This statement made on behalf of the Senator gives the misleading impression that the 

senior Ensigns considered the Hamptons to be long-time family friends, that the gifts were

motivated by the senior Ensigns concern for the well-being of [these so-called] long time 

friends, and that the gifts were consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to

 16 See Transcript of Jon Ralston s interview with Doug Hampton, http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/08/transcript-jon-ralstons-interview-doug-hampton (last 

visited April 25, 2011). 

17 See New York Times, Senator s Parents Gave Mistress Thousands, July 10, 2009.
43

the Hamptons. First, as described herein, it was no secret that Michael Ensign did not have a 

high regard or affection for Doug Hampton from his first encounter with him years earlier. 

Second, the payment had all the indicia of a generous, if illegal, severance payment made in an 

effort to pacify and calm the anxious Hamptons, whom Senator Ensign had just terminated from 

their well-paying jobs with him. 

6. Michael Ensign, Sharon Ensign, and Senator Ensign Submit 

Affidavits to the FEC Regarding the Payment

With the $96,000 payment a matter of public record, as noted above, CREW filed a 

complaint on June 24, 2009 with the Federal Election Commission, asserting that the payment 

amounted to an illegal campaign contribution. Mr. Gober prepared affidavits for the signature of 

the Senator and both of the senior Ensigns and submitted them to the FEC. According to 

Michael and Sharon Ensign s substantially similar August 11, 2009 affidavits to the FEC, after

Senator Ensign informed them of the affair with Ms. Hampton, and unprompted by Senator 

Ensign or anyone else, the parents decided to make gifts to the Hampton family out of concern

for the well-being of long-time family friends. Senator Ensign s August 11, 2009 affidavit

made a similar claim that he did not request that his parents make the gifts to the Hamptons, and that, instead, he learned of their gifts when they informed [the Senator] that they made gifts, totaling $96,000 to the Hampton family. When pressed by the Special Counsel about whether his son had requested him to make 

the payment, Michael Ensign stated, however, that Senator Ensign may have mentioned the

Senator s need to compensate the Hamptons. The Ensigns stated to the FEC that they independently determined that they would make 

a payment to the Hamptons of approximately $100,000, but reduced the payment to $96,000 in 

order to comply with applicable gift tax laws. Michael Ensign instructed his Chief Financial 

Officer, Bruce Hampton, to prepare and sign a check for $96,000, dated April 7, 2008, to Doug, 

Cynthia, Brandon, and Blake Hampton out of the Ensign Family Trust account.

The affidavits of Michael and Sharon Ensign explained that they had made sizeable gifts

to the Hampton family over the 20 year friendship with the Senator. Specifically, the senior

Ensigns stated that they paid for the Hampton family to vacation in Hawaii which, in addition

to the flights on a private jet, included a rental home with its own private 9-hole golf course, 

food, and recreational activities. Although I have not undertaken an accounting of the total cost 

of the trip, I believe the cost that could be allocated to the Hamptons was at least $30,000. Both of the senior Ensigns acknowledged under questioning by the Special Counsel that 

they did not carefully review the affidavits before signing them and that the affidavits had been 

prepared by the Senator s counsel after a short telephone call with Michael Ensign. The lawyer

did not speak with Sharon Ensign before preparing her affidavit. 

The FEC General Counsel urged the Commission in a report dated March 31, 2010 that 

the FEC find reason to believe that the $96,000 was, in fact, an excessive campaign contribution, 
44

and recommended an investigation into this matter. The FEC rejected the General Counsel s

recommendation by a 5 to 0 vote on November 19, 2010.18

a. There Was No Evidence Supporting the Assertion in the FEC 

Affidavits That the Senior Ensigns Paid for the Hamptons

Trip to Hawaii

The Ensign Family Sample Itinerary details the arrival of the 16 individuals who

attended the trip: the Ensign family, the Hampton family, members of Senator Ensign s brother

Bill s family, and the Ensign family nanny. The various activities that were planned such as

dinner at Spago s, a spa treatment, golf, the Maui Aquarium, scuba diving, whale watching, 

snorkeling, a luau, and other planned meals. Additionally, the Committee has a copy of Senator 

Ensign s journal entry regarding the Hawaii trip. The journal entry details some of the activities

from the trip, but does not state that Michael Ensign paid for the trip.

According to the evidence, the families used a travel service called Pure Maui, a

company that provides luxury lodging and entertainment services to persons vacationing in 

Maui.19 The Committee does not have evidence as to the exact cost of the private homes the 

Ensign and the Hampton families stayed in or who paid for them. According to Senator Ensign s

journal, his immediate family stayed in a private home at no cost, and his brother s family stayed

with the Hamptons in a separate home that was rented. Senator Ensign s journal for the time

period states that he and his family stayed at the residence of Joe and Gail Mitchell. No evidence 

has been presented that Senator Ensign disclosed this gift of lodging with the Senate Ethics 

Committee.

With respect to expenses, an invoice from Pure Maui details approximately $9,262.00 in 

costs from the trip, including golf, a private boat charter and a private chef. The invoice states: 

Bill to: John Ensign. The invoice, along with a second Pure Maui invoice for $23,898.20, 

presumably for lodging expenses, and numerous other vacation charges totaling approximately 

$10,374, was charged to a MasterCard that is believed to be Senator Ensign s. The total

approximate cost of the trip for all 16 people to attend was $43,534. The evidence suggests, 

however, that the focus of the Hawaii trip was not the Hamptons they were incidental guests 

that attended this trip and added no real significant cost to the travel or housing expense. 

The affidavits of the senior Ensigns and of Senator Ensign appear to be misleading and 

potentially false on the central issue of the FEC investigation the nature of the $96,000 

payment from the senior Ensigns to the Hamptons and the purported pattern of generosity from 

the senior Ensigns to the Hamptons. The senior Ensigns affidavits also appear to be false on

their estimation that the value of the trip to the Hamptons was at least $30,000, because, as noted 

 18 Eric Lichtblau, F.E.C. Rejected Counsel With Its Vote on Senator, New York Times, 

December 20, 2010.

19 Pure Maui currently advertises that Hawaii s most luxurious vacation experience [i.e., Pure 

Kauai] is now available on Maui. Fabulous private homes. Gourmet chefs. The island s best adventures

and spa services. And personalized attention that raises the standard for luxury travel.... See

www.puremaui.com.
45

above, the entire trip for 16 people cost approximately $43,534, so the Hamptons share of the

expenses in Hawaii would have been less than $14,000.

According to Michael Ensign, he allowed Senator Ensign to use the family airplane for 

the trip, a Gulfstream IV that is used entirely and frequently for personal Ensign family travel. 

Mr. Ensign was absolutely certain, however, that he did not pay for any housing 

accommodations, food or activities on the trip for his own adult children and his grandchildren, 

let alone for the Hamptons. Mr. Ensign disavowed his FEC affidavit during the deposition, 

stating that s absolutely false. Specifically, Mr. Ensign stated that Well, this payment for

these things in Hawaii, that s absolutely false. We never paid for anything. We let them use the 

airplane, that s it . . . . And I absolutely did not pay anything in Hawaii, talking about a home 

and a golf course and food. No, none of that, paid nothing. Senator Ensign s mother testified that she did not recall paying for any expenses related

to the Hawaii trip, and testified that any payment for the Hawaii trip would have come from the 

Ensign Family Trust Fund. Additionally, Senator Ensign s mother also did not recall giving

Senator Ensign funds from accounts other than the Ensign Family Trust Fund. The Committee 

recently received information from Senator Ensign s mother, in the form of the scan of two

checks with no written explanation, which appears to reflect that she may have deposited 

approximately $50,000 into Senator Ensign s bank or credit card account around the time of this 

post-election, 2006 Hawaii holiday trip that her two sons took. This deposit, which was made 

out to Citibank, was also made around the time that Senator Ensign was charging trip expenses 

in Hawaii to his credit card. The Committee received no testimony from Mrs. Ensign or anyone 

to the effect that this giving of money to her son was unusual, extraordinary, or timed to 

reimburse him specifically for the Hampton expenses on the Hawaii trip. Additionally, Senator 

Ensign s brother s family occupied the home in Hawaii in which the Hamptons stayed, arguably 

making any added housing cost for the Hamptons presence to be non-existent or negligible. 

Finally, based on the cost figures noted above, the $30,000 estimation of the value of the trip to 

the Hamptons appears to be overstated. 

The inconsistency between the facts and the FEC affidavit requires, the Special Counsel 

submits, further investigation by the Department of Justice and the FEC.

b. Michael and Sharon Ensign s Payment to the Hamptons

Greatly Exceeds Other Gifts Given to Non-Ensign Family 

Members

Michael and Sharon Ensign s financial generosity towards their family, close friends and

employees is extraordinary. Michael and Sharon Ensign made regular disbursements to their 

children and grandchildren from the Ensign Family Trust. For example, Senator Ensign and 

Darlene Ensign received a significant annual gift from Michael and Sharon Ensign, including 

$300,000 in 2006, $400,000 in 2007, and $300,000 in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

The senior Ensigns also made disbursements to extended family members, to close 

friends of the senior Ensigns, and to the senior Ensigns employees and the families of their

employees. The gifts to the Ensign friends are typically made on an annual basis, and are usually 

disbursed during the holiday season. The Ensigns have demonstrated a particular loyalty to their 
46

long-standing friends, with annual gifts to Michael Ensign s family doctor and members of his

family, and to his retired priest. The gifts reviewed by the Committee in this matter do not, 

however, demonstrate a patter of giving to the Hamptons. The total amount of gifts given by the senior Ensigns in 2010 was $1,504,000. As of 

April 1, 2011, $87,500 has been distributed to Ensign family members.

In 2009, Michael and Sharon Ensign made gifts in varying amounts, from $5,000 to 

$52,000, to a number of close personal friends. The total amount of gifts given by the senior 

Ensigns in 2009 was $1,464,000.

In 2008, Michael and Sharon Ensign made a number of gifts to non-relatives, including 

the payment to the Hamptons. The payment in 2008 is the only payment to the Hamptons. The 

total amount of gifts given by the senior Ensigns in 2008 was $1,576,339. The only non-family 

member who received a payment similar in size to the Hampton payment in 2008 was a former 

daughter-in-law that Michael Ensign stated was still considered to be a member of the family. 

Aside from that payment, the Hamptons payment is double the next highest payment, which was

made to the Ensigns long-standing family doctor and friend.

M. The Senator s Chief of Staff Misleads the Public Regarding Senator Ensign s

Actions and Mr. Hampton s Lobbying Efforts

As discussed above, the affair became public on June 16, 2009. After the affair became 

public, members of the press and public began to inquire as to the nature of the relationship 

between Mr. Hampton and Senator Ensign and his staff during Mr. Hampton s one-year ban 

period.20 Senator Ensign s staff responded to these inquiries with misleading explanations. For 

example, Mr. Lopez told the New York Times that Senator Ensign had designated him to be the 

office s intermediary with Hampton to ensure that the contacts complied with the law. Mr. Lopez later testified in his deposition by the Special Counsel that this was not true:

Q: So why did you tell the New York Times reporter that?

A: To you know, to paint the best picture of the Senator on this. 

Keep in mind, I was still drinking the Kool-Aid at that point. And 

I mean, that what I said was a mischaracterization of my of the 

conversation I really had with the Senator, was adding in that stuff 

about complying with the law and so forth. 

Mr. Lopez also told the New York Times that his conversations with Mr. Hampton were

simply informational, and the article quoted him as saying, Did [Hampton] advocate and try

to lobby in a couple of instances? Absolutely. But that s his problem. Mr. Lopez testified to

Special Counsel that this was not a fair statement.

 20 See, e.g., Eric Lipton and Eric Lichtblau, Senator s Aid After Af air Raises Flags Over Ethics, New York Times at A1 (Oct. 1, 2009).
47

Similarly, Mr. Lopez told a reporter for Politico that he was required to make sure that

Hampton wasn t breaking the law by lobbying Ensign within one year of leaving his staff. Mr. Lopez testified that what happened was not as it wasn t this way, and that in reality, he was

trying to paint it in the best light for the Senator. Mr. Lopez noted that any statement that

Senator Ensign never directed Mr. Lopez to fulfill requests from Mr. Hampton would be untrue, 

because when I said that I will deal with [Hampton] and handle his requests, [Senator Ensign] 

agreed to it readily. He just didn t want to know about the rest of the details. Mr. Lopez

explained that he was asked to deal with Mr. Hampton because I was willing to do it, and the

Senator knew that I would do it for him and he didn t want to know the details of what that

meant. Mr. Lopez confirmed that both he and Senator Ensign knew that Mr. Hampton would

be working on behalf of clients in seeking to influence the Senate office in violation of the one- year ban:

I don t think there s any reasonable way you could think

otherwise, so yes. III. SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY INQUIRY INVESTIGATION

A. The Request for Investigation of Senator Ensign

On June 16, 2009, Senator Ensign held a public press conference in which he admitted he 

had an extramarital affair with a member of his staff, later identified as Ms. Hampton. On June 

24, 2009, the Committee received a Request for Investigation of Senator John Ensign from

CREW. The request alleged that Senator Ensign s conduct with Cynthia Hampton constituted 

employment discrimination on the basis of sex in the form of sexual harassment, and referred to 

a press report in which an anonymous source stated that the Senator had made a severance 

payment to Ms. Hampton. On July 21, 2009, Senator Ensign, through counsel, responded to 

CREW s June 24, 2009 submission, and requested that the Committee dismiss CREW s request

for an investigation. 

On October 6, 2009, CREW submitted a supplemental letter to the Committee outlining 

additional information that CREW believed relevant to an investigation of Senator Ensign.21 That submission raised additional questions regarding Senator Ensign s conduct, including with

respect to potential post-employment lobbying ban violations by Doug Hampton, and issues 

related to apparent payments to the Hamptons. It also requested an investigation into Senator 

Coburn s role with respect to the settlement negotiations between Senator Ensign and Mr. Hampton.

B. The Preliminary Inquiry

The Committee authorized a Preliminary Inquiry and sent a letter to Senator Ensign s

counsel on October 21, 2009 asking the Senator to respond to specific questions and detailed 

 21 That information was derived primarily from a New York Times article regarding Senator Ensign 

published on or about October 2, 2009.
48

requests for information related to numerous issues relevant to the Preliminary Inquiry. The 

Committee also directed the Senator in writing to preserve and prevent the destruction of any

documents or electronic media that may contain any information which is in any way relevant to 

any of the . . . questions or matters mentioned therein until further notice of the Committee. Senator Ensign, through counsel, provided an initial response to the Committee s specific

questions and requests for information on November 20, 2009. This response also addressed 

CREW s October 6 Letter. Senator Ensign, through counsel, also made an additional submission 

on December 16, 2009, and responded thereafter to a number of supplemental requests of the 

Committee staff.

1. Initial Document Productions, Witness Interviews, and Depositions

During the course of the 22 month investigation, Committee staff, later joined by Special 

Counsel, conducted 72 witness interviews and depositions, including members of Senator 

Ensign s current and former staff and numerous third parties and reviewed over a half million

documents received from numerous sources, including Senator Ensign and his staff. 

Under procedures agreed to by the Senator and the Committee, images of the desktop 

computers, laptop computers, and BlackBerries associated with the Senator and his office were 

created and maintained by the Sergeant at Arms ( SAA ) in January 2010. In April 2010, the

Senator disclosed that he had a home desktop computer, which had not been previously disclosed 

to the Committee, and images were made of that device as well. The Senator submitted an 

affidavit in May 2010, explaining that he simply did not think of this computer in connection

with the earlier imaging because he used it only infrequently for work. 

After lengthy negotiations with the Senator s counsel over how these electronic

documents were to be searched, productions of several hundred thousand electronic documents 

were made in August 2010. Production of documents from these sources continued until 

February 2011.22 Electronic documents received from Senator Ensign and his Senate staff were 

loaded into a database for review by Committee Staff. These 498,592 documents consisted of 

emails, calendar entries, and native documents. 

The Committee staff also moved forward to obtain information from numerous third 

parties, including persons and companies Senator Ensign contacted in his efforts to assist Mr. 

Hampton in finding employment, companies for whom Mr. Hampton worked and other Senate 

offices that had been contacted by Mr. Hampton during his lobbying ban period, (i.e., National 

NRSC, Republican Policy Committee and individual Senate offices). Staff also received 

documents from Senator Coburn. The Committee staff interviewed 40 witnesses, including the 

Hamptons, and then conducted a first round of 16 depositions that concluded on July 6, 2010. 

These witnesses included current and former Ensign Senate staff. Committee staff thereafter 

interviewed several additional witnesses, including three DOT officials involved in contact with 

 22 The Committee hired an outside vendor, CACI, to assist in processing and reviewing the 

electronic document production. CACI subsequently assisted both the Committee Staff and Special 

Counsel during the Preliminary Inquiry.
49

Senator Ensign s office as to matters on which Mr. Hampton was working. Committee staff also 

reviewed over 32,000 pages of materials produced by 32 different sources in hard copy.

As the document review continued to proceed in earnest through the Fall of 2010, 

Committee staff determined that a second round of depositions would be necessary. The planned 

depositions were complicated, however, by a parallel criminal investigation by the Public 

Integrity Section of the Justice Department. Five witnesses asserted or threatened to assert their 

Fifth Amendment rights in light of the parallel Justice Department investigation. Committee 

staff obtained immunity orders for certain witnesses, who were deposed in December 2010 and 

January 2011.23 Depositions of other witnesses were postponed while Committee staff 

determined what accommodations might be made to account for the Justice Department s

concerns.

2. Retention of Special Counsel to Assist with Preliminary Inquiry

At this stage, the Committee and its staff concluded that the assistance of a Special 

Counsel would materially advance the Preliminary Inquiry. On January 31, 2011, the Committee 

voted unanimously to retain as Special Counsel Carol Elder Bruce and her law firm K&L Gates 

LLP to assist in conducting the Preliminary Inquiry and to assist the Committee staff in making 

the required report of findings and recommendations upon completion of the inquiry.

Special Counsel immediately began to undertake the remaining work necessary to bring 

the Preliminary Inquiry to completion. Special Counsel reviewed the sets of key documents 

compiled by the Committee staff along with the deposition transcripts, exhibits and interview 

memoranda, and information from these sources was added to an initial chronology of events 

that had been started by Committee staff. Independent searches of the data sources were 

conducted by the Special Counsel s staff to supplement the previous work by SSCE and prepare

for upcoming depositions.

a. Additional Document Production and Forensic Imaging

Special Counsel and Committee staff jointly concluded there was evidence of potential 

deletion of relevant materials, unexplained gaps in production, and serious factual and legal 

insufficiencies in the privilege logs Senator Ensign s counsel submitted. The Committee 

consequently sent letters to Senator Ensign s counsel in late February 2011 to address its 

concerns and to request that Senator Ensign permit the forensic imaging of devices in the 

possession of the SAA which might provide key information contained in the metadata and fill in 

possible gaps chronologically. 

On March 4, 2011, counsel for Senator Ensign produced 265 documents that he had 

determined should have been produced on September 20, 2010, but had not been due to an error 

by Senator Ensign s private e-discovery vendor. Less than a week later, the Senator s counsel 

 23 Committee staff undertook several other depositions at this time as well, including the Senator s

press secretary and several staffers for other Senators who had been contacted by Mr. Hampton. In all, 

eight additional depositions were taken between November 2010 and January 2011.
50

produced another 760 documents, previously withheld as privileged, in response to the 

Committee s February 23, 2011 letter challenging prior assertions of privilege. Special Counsel and Committee staff also obtained forensic images of Senator Ensign s

two laptops and BlackBerry device and John Lopez s work laptop from the SAA. A total of 939

documents were segregated as potentially privileged and reviewed by a team of K&L Gates 

attorneys assisting Special Counsel. As a result, 73 documents were determined to be potentially 

privileged and copies of those materials were provided to Senator Ensign s counsel. A total of

49,821 documents were subsequently reviewed for relevance. 

The Committee and Special Counsel also made additional efforts to identify any 

materials that had been deleted from the devices and potentially missed by the initial collection 

efforts. CACI was able to retrieve 6,268 records that had previously been deleted from the 

devices and retained in the unallocated space on the hard drives. Although initially it was 

believed that actual deletion dates of documents on Senator Ensign s computer could be

obtained, CACI determined that such information could not be obtained.

Special Counsel and Committee staff also obtained other materials from John Lopez. 

Counsel for Mr. Lopez informed Special Counsel and SSCE that a .pst file containing emails 

from the time of Mr. Lopez s employment with Senator Ensign had been uploaded to his current

employer s server. Four hundred and twenty-nine (429) emails were subsequently produced 

from this source. Mr. Lopez s counsel also informed SSCE and Special Counsel that Mr. Lopez

also had a personal laptop that he utilized during his tenure as Chief of Staff for Senator Ensign 

that contained materials relevant to the investigation. A forensic image of this laptop was made 

and 1,643 emails were uploaded to the database for review. 

b. Additional Depositions and Immunized Testimony

With the Committee s explicit permission and direction, Special Counsel and Committee 

staff worked with Senate Legal Counsel to apply for immunity for Mr. Lopez and Mr. Hampton. 

Special Counsel and the Committee s Chief Counsel then met with the Chief of the Public

Integrity Section to impress upon him the Committee s significant interest in having all of the 

information necessary to fully evaluate the conduct of a sitting Senator. The Department 

dropped its opposition to an immunity order for Mr. Lopez, and Special Counsel proceeded to 

depose him under a grant of immunity. The Department indicted Mr. Hampton for alleged 

violations of 18 U.S.C. § 207(e)(2) on March 24, 2011.24 As a consequence of that indictment, Mr. Hampton could not be deposed for the 

Preliminary Inquiry. However, Special Counsel did undertake the deposition of Mr. Lopez and 

of Yorick Jurani, Senator Ensign s Information Systems Manager, under grants of immunity. Special Counsel also deposed eight other witnesses in the final round of Preliminary Inquiry 

depositions. The round of depositions was intended to conclude with the deposition of Senator 

Ensign on May 4 and 5, 2011. 

 24 See United States v. Hampton, Case No. 1:11-cr-00085 (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2011).
51

Special Counsel also undertook an independent assessment of the substantial 

investigative record and of the applicable law in order to make the findings and 

recommendations contained in this Report.

C. The Retirement and Resignation of Senator Ensign

On March 7, 2011, Senator Ensign announced he would not seek re-election in 2012. On 

April 21, 2011, while the Preliminary Inquiry remained ongoing, Senator Ensign announced he 

would resign as the 24th Senator from the State of Nevada, effective May 3, 2011. That 

effective date was prior to the previously scheduled deposition dates for the Senator, during 

which Special Counsel had intended to elicit extensive testimony on matters relevant to the 

Preliminary Inquiry.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL

A. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Conspired to 

Violate, and Aided and Abetted Mr. Hampton s Violations of The Post

Employment Contact Ban, 18 U.S.C. § 207

Special Counsel has identified at least thirty instances in which Mr. Hampton contacted a 

Senate official during the year after he left Senator Ensign s staff, involving twelve separate

client matters. Special Counsel also considers it likely that more such contacts occurred, but 

were not memorialized in writing or preserved for discovery in this investigation. Senate rules 

have long barred Senators and their staffs from lobbying former Senate colleagues, employees, 

and employers for one year after leaving office.25 This prohibition is also embodied in a criminal 

statute, 18 U.S.C. § 207. 26 Special Counsel submits that the record contains substantial credible evidence that 

Senator Ensign conspired to violate, and aided and abetted Mr. Hampton s violations of, 18

U.S.C. § 207(e)(2).

1. Mr. Hampton s Contacts Were Not Exempt as Informational

Contacts

It was suggested by counsel for Mr. Lopez and Senator Ensign, and by Senator Ensign 

himself, that communications by covered former employees with Senators or Senate staff are 

 25 Manual, at 87 (citations omitted).

26 18 U.S.C. § 207(e)(2). (2) Officers and staff of the Senate. Any person who 

is an elected officer of the Senate, or an employee of the Senate to whom paragraph 

(7)(A) applies, and who, within 1 year after that person leaves office or employment, 

knowingly makes, with the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance 

before any Senator or any officer or employee of the Senate, on behalf of any other 

person (except the United States) in connection with any matter on which such former 

elected officer or former employee seeks action by a Senator or an officer or employee of 

the Senate, in his or her official capacity, shall be punished as provided in section 216 of

this title.
52

permissible if they are merely informational in nature and do not seek action of the type that 

would be defined as lobbying under other statutes, and moreover that this exemption is

widely recognized among ethics practitioners. This contention was advanced in discussions with 

counsel, who did not cite any case law or any legislative materials in support of it. Special 

Counsel submits that this contention is incorrect as to contacts involving both Mr. Lopez and 

Senator Ensign.

Section 207 prohibits any communications seeking official action made with the intent to 

influence, and does not state or imply that those communications must also meet the separate 

requirements of any other statute. The Manual makes this clear, as does the legislative history of 

Section 207(e)(2). The Manual contrasts the prohibition contained in Section 207 with the 

separate prohibitions of Senate Rule 37, which applies post-employment lobbying limits on 

every Senate Member and employee for one year after leaving the Senate, regardless of Senate 

salary. 27 In short, as compared with Rule 37, Section 207 apples to a smaller class of persons 

but has a broader definition of prohibited contacts. The Manual expressly cautions that under 18 

U.S.C. § 207(e) the scope of covered activities ( any communication to or appearance before )

is broader than the lobbying activities prohibited by the Senate Rule. 28 2. Contacts by Covered Persons Are Illegal Even If the Requested 

Action Would Have Been Taken in Any Event

It was also suggested in the course of the Preliminary Inquiry that a contact cannot be 

prohibited under Section 207(e)(2), or constitute improper conduct, if the Senator or staffer 

contacted would have taken the action even absent the prohibited contact. This position ignores 

both the language and the purpose of the statute, as well as pertinent case law. Section 207 

prohibits contacts by a covered person seeking official action that are made with the intent to 

influence, and the violation is complete once the contact with intent to influence is made. The 

statute makes no reference to any intention or action by the person contacted, and imposes no 

separate requirement that the contact lead to some kind of corrupt action. 

 27 Senate Rule 37(13) defines lobbying for purposes of that Rule as any oral or written

communication to influence the content or disposition of any issue before Congress, including any 

pending or future bill, resolution, treaty, nomination, hearing report, or investigation. This definition is 

similar to the definition of a lobbying contact that is contained in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 

Pub. L. No. 104-65, Sec. 3(8)(A), codified at 2 U.S.C. § 1602(8).

28 Manual at 89-90. The legislative history of Section 207(e)(2) confirms its intended broad scope. 

The Senate committee report explaining the legislation noted that it was intended to apply to all 

advocacy contacts, defined as any contact on behalf of another for compensation. See, S. Rep. 100- 101, at 22 (1987) The House committee report likewise emphasized that [a]ny prohibitions under 18

U.S.C. § 207 will apply to all representation, not just to lobbying, and would cover all contacts and

representatives (not just lobbying) by former federal employees with the prohibited department, agency, 

or branch of government throughout the country and across the world. See, H.R. Rep. 100-1068 at 12. 

Moreover, as the facts of this Preliminary Inquiry demonstrate, contacts by a former high-ranking 

employee will, as a practical matter, invariably seek some type of action. For example, Mr. Hampton s

inquiries about the status of specific matters induced Mr. Lopez to follow up on those matters. In any 

event, many of Mr. Hampton s contacts fell within the definition of lobbying under Senate Rule 37 and 

would violate that rule as well. 
53

This conclusion is necessary to protect against the appearance of impropriety. The statute 

prohibits the communication because contact by a former colleague causes others to believe that

[the] fix is in. 29 There is an appearance of impropriety when a former federal employee

contacts current federal employees regarding government issues, even when no action is taken by 

the current employee because of that contact. 30 Case law addressing the analogous situation of 

public officials who act after receiving an illegal gratuity fully supports this conclusion.31

3. Evidence of Aiding and Abetting

Aiding and abetting is a criminal standard under which any person who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of a crime is as culpable and

punishable as one who commits the crime himself.32 The standard has three elements: (1) the 

principal committed a crime; (2) the abettor knowingly associated with the principal; and (3) the 

abettor participated in the principal s crime with the intent to help it succeed.33 [T]he law is

well settled that one may be found guilty of aiding and abetting another individual in his 

violation of a statute that the aider and abettor could not be charged personally with violating. 34

An individual knowingly associates with a principal where the individual shares in the 

principal s essential criminal intent. 35 Aiding and abetting requires more than mere 

presence;36 the defendant must have taken affirmative conduct designed to aid the venture, 37 or 

which at least encourages the principal offender to commit the offense. 38 

 29 H.R. Rep. 100-1068 at 12.

30 Id. at 16.

31 See May v. United States, 175 F.2d 994, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 1949)( If the money was received by 

May as compensation for acts done by him for the Garssons, it is immaterial that those acts were patriotic, 

legitimate and within the scope of his official duties as a Congressman. ); United States v. Booth, 148 F. 

112, 117 (C.C.D. Or. 1906)( The essence of the statutory offense is, not receiving, or agreeing to receive, 

compensation for proper or improper acts, but the receiving, or the agreeing to receive, compensation for 

service of any kind. ). 32 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). 

33 Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619 (1949); United States v. Spinney, 65 F.3d 231, 

235 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Teffera, 985 F.2d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 

34 In re Nofziger, 956 F.2d 287, 290 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (construing 18 U.S.C. § 207).

35 See, e.g., United States v. Campa, 679 F.2d 1006, 1010 (1st Cir. 1982); United States v. Romero- Cruz, 201 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Sorrells, 145 F.3d 744, 753 (5th Cir. 

1998)).

36 See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58, 65 n.4 (1951); United States v. Ivey, 915 F.2d 

380, 384 (8th Cir. 1990). 

37 United States v. Vasquez, 953 F.2d 176, 183 (5th Cir. 1992)(citation omitted).

38 United States v. Frorup, 963 F.2d 41, 43 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. Raper, 676 F.2d 

841, 850 (D.C. Cir. 1982)).
54

The substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign knowingly associated with, 

participated in, and furthered Mr. Hampton s illegal contacts is outlined above. It includes

evidence that Senator Ensign: (1) collaborated with Mr. Hampton in establishing his business as 

a lobbyist, brokered his installation at November Inc. with the understanding that sufficient client 

engagements would replace his lost salary; (2) pressured contributors and constituents to hire 

him in conduct that went far beyond the normal provision of references or appropriate requests 

and was described by Mr. Lopez as an abuse of his office; and (3) never advised any of these 

contacts that Mr. Hampton would be subject to a one-year ban. The Senator had a direct interest 

in the success of Mr. Hampton s venture. Moreover, the evidence shows that Mr. Hampton s

primary, if not only, marketable asset for a lobbying practice was his relationship with Senator 

Ensign, and a number of persons whom Senator Ensign urged to hire Mr. Hampton testified that 

they considered his access to Senator Ensign and his office to be the primary reason they would 

consider hiring him.

Senator Ensign also encouraged Mr. Hampton to use Mr. Lopez as a conduit for all such 

contacts and soon after several of his staff expressed grave concerns about Mr. Hampton s initial

contact, Mr. Lopez formally requested that the office policy manual be updated to the reflect that 

Mr. Lopez alone could contact the Ethics Committee.39 Finally, there is substantial credible 

evidence that following these communications Senator Ensign took the official actions that Mr. 

Hampton was requesting. 

Senator Ensign, through his counsel, has asserted that he cannot properly be charged with 

aiding and abetting a violation of Section 207(e)(2) because he contends that Congress, by 

applying the statute only to the person making the contact and not the person receiving the 

contact, has signaled its intent that the recipient of the contact cannot be held liable either 

directly or indirectly through the general aiding and abetting statute. A similar contention was 

squarely rejected in the Nofziger case, cited above.40 May v. United States, also discussed above, 

reached the same conclusion with respect to a Congressman who received an illegal gratuity.41 Consistent with this reasoning, the Justice Department obtained a guilty plea from Congressman 

Bob Ney for aiding and abetting his former Chief of Staff Neil Volz, who immediately began 

lobbying the Congressman and office after leaving his position.42 

 39 To the credit of Senator Ensign s staff, before receiving this directive they had immediately made 

inquiries of the Ethics Committee to clarify the nature of lobbying contacts and to clarify their obligations 

in dealing with a banned person.

40 956 F.2d at 290 ( Bragg contends that section 207(c), which is applicable only to former 

government employees, could not legally be utilized against aiders and abettors who had never been

government employees. However, the law is well settled that one may be found guilty of aiding and 

abetting another individual in his violation of a statute that the aider and abettor could not be charged 

personally with violating. ) (citing Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)).

41 175 F.2d at 1004-05 ( To sustain appellants contention, we would have to write, or read, such an 

exception into the otherwise unqualified general statute dealing with aiders and abettors. We think we 

cannot do that.... The same reasoning ... would point to the same conclusion in respect to all other statutes 

in which only one of two participants is mentioned. ). 42 Information as to Robert W. Ney, No. 1:06-cr-00272, at 6 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 2006) ECF No. 1.
55

4. Evidence of Conspiracy

A conspiracy exists where two or more persons agree to accomplish a criminal or an 

unlawful act, accompanied by an overt act in furtherance of that agreement.43 As set out above, 

there is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign reached a number of agreements with 

Mr. Hampton and with Mr. Lopez to facilitate Mr. Hampton s Section 207 violations.44 Special 

Counsel does not find that the evidence supports the contention that Senator Ensign intended Mr. 

Lopez to handle any contacts with Mr. Hampton to ensure that he complied with the law, as 

among other things, there is no evidence that either man took any overt action to stop these 

contacts.

Senator Ensign, through counsel, has also suggested that he cannot be considered to have

conspired to violate Section 207(e) because the crime itself requires an agreement between two 

parties (the former employee making the contact, and the Senate official who is contacted). 

Again, the D.C. Circuit s Nofziger opinion disposes of this contention. In that case, as here, the 

alleged conspirator was not a necessary party to [the principal s] violation of [Section 207]. 45 Mr. Hampton was able to commit a violation of Section 207 without the involvement of Senator 

Ensign, and the Senator s agreement to facilitate contacts with Mr. Lopez and allow them to go 

undetected would fall well within the permissible bounds of a conspiracy charge.46 Moreover, imposing liability on conspirators is fully consistent with Congress intent to protect against both 

the appearance and actuality of impropriety. There is no evidence of any congressional intent to 

protect a Senator or staffer who knowingly participates in and furthers an illegal contact.47

Finally, even if a court might find Senator Ensign s conduct to not rise to the level of a 

criminal violation, the standard of conduct expected of Senators and Senate employees goes well 

beyond compliance with the letter of criminal statutes. Senators are expected to refrain from any 

improper conduct that might reflect on the Senate. Special Counsel submits that there is 

substantial credible evidence that the Senator s actions with respect to the contacts by Mr. Hampton fell short of this standard. 

 43 See 2 Fed. Jury Practice & Inst. §§ 31.01-31.03 (5th Ed. 2000); United States v. Rankin, 870 F.2d 

109, 113 (3d Cir. 1989). 

44 Even if agreements take place over a number of months and do not involve a meeting between all 

conspirators, they can still be a single conspiracy. See, e.g., Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539 

(1947); Sigers v. United States, 321 F.2d 843 (5th Cir. 1963). 

45 Nofziger, 956 F.2d at 291 (distinguishing United States v. Nasser, 476 F.2d 1111, 1119 (7th Cir. 

1973)).

46 See United States v. Annunziata, 293 F.2d 373, 380 n.4 (2d Cir. 1961)( the Wharton rule would

not be applicable here, since at least two persons other than the payor and the receiver ... knowingly 

participated in the criminal enterprise. ). 47 See Id. at 378 (where statute prohibiting union official from making payments to employer had a 

dual purpose-of protecting employers against extortion and of insuring honest representation to 

employees, employer was liable for conspiracy for taking the payment: He is not simply and solely a

member of the class whom the statute aims to protect; he is likewise a member of a class whose activities 

the statute aims to curb distinguishing Gebardi v. United States, 287 U.S. 112 (1932)). 
56

B. Findings Concerning the $96,000 Payment to the Hamptons 

A key matter in the Preliminary Inquiry was whether a $96,000 payment by Senator 

Ensign s parents to Mr. and Ms. Hampton and two of their three children was intended as a

severance payment to Mr. and Ms. Hampton upon their leaving the Senator s employ. Before

the payment became public, the Senator represented on a number of occasions that it was 

severance. Later, after receiving legal advice, he changed his explanation and claimed it was an 

unsolicited gift from his parents to the Hamptons. 

There is no dispute that the payment was made. If the payment was severance to Mr. and 

Mrs. Hampton, and Special Counsel submits that there is substantial credible evidence that it 

was, then three consequences flow: (1) the Senator s statements to the contrary, including in a

sworn affidavit to the Federal Election Commission, were false; (2) a portion of the payment 

violated federal law and the Senate Rule prohibiting unofficial accounts; and (3) a portion of the 

payment was an illegal campaign contribution by the Senator s parents that was not reported by 

the Senator s campaign committees as required by law. Finally, even if the Senator s contention

that the payment was a gift were credited, the payment was not reported as required by Senate 

Rule 35.

1. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment Was 

Severance and the Evidence Does Not Support Claims That the 

Payment Was a Gift

Special Counsel and Committee Staff identified a number of instances in which Senator 

Ensign referred to the April 2008 payment to the Hampton family as severance. These

include: (1) oral statements during the June 15, 2009 emergency staff meeting regarding 

severance payments, including payments for health insurance, the details of which were recalled 

by several staff members; (2) statements in the earlier drafts of his June 15, 2009 public 

statement prior to receiving advice from his counsel to take out the references to severance; (3) 

statements to Ms. Hampton that he was providing her and her husband with severance, with 

additional funds to be used for health insurance; (4) Senator Ensign s journal entry from June

2009 indicating that he did not want the government to pay the Hamptons severance but wanted 

to help them transition into their new life ; (5) a statement to his spiritual advisor Marty 

Sherman that I m going to give him as much severance as possible ; and (6) the statement to his

former campaign manager Mike Slanker that we gave Cindy $100,000 severance to help them. The fact that the payment was made two days after Ms. Hampton left her employment with the 

campaign also supports a finding that it was severance. Doug Hampton s handwritten notes

documenting his communications with Senator Ensign regarding his departure from the Senate 

staff also refer to planned severance for him and Ms. Hampton, and a communication plan 

regarding the issues.48

 48 Special Counsel recognizes that Mr. Hampton has been indicted for alleged violations of 18 

U.S.C. § 207, but notes that Mr. Hampton has acknowledged much of the conduct that forms the basis of 

that indictment in the course of his interviews with Committee staff and the FBI. Special Counsel does 

not believe the indictment affects the evidence Mr. Hampton has provided as to whether the payment was 

intended as severance, particularly in light of Senator Ensign s many statements to the same effect. In

addition to the $96,000 payment to the Hamptons, Senator Ensign authorized a $6,000 payment to Mr. 
57

Likewise, the traditional indicia of a gift are not present here.49 All other recipients of 

gifts from Michael and Sharon Ensign were their family, close friends, or employees, and the gift 

is double the amount of the next largest gift to a non-Ensign family member (excluding a former 

in-law who Michael Ensign testified was still considered a family member). In contrast, the 

senior Ensigns and Doug Hampton had a contentious relationship. Mr. Ensign recalled a 

business transaction with Mr. Hampton in which Mr. Ensign was dissatisfied, and Mrs. Ensign 

thought Mr. Hampton was an opportunist. Mr. Ensign testified that the portion of his sworn

statement to the FEC intended to support the Senator s position that the gift was part of a pattern

of giving to the Hamptons was untrue. The payment was also not accompanied by any written or 

oral expression of concern to the Hampton family. Finally, to be a legitimate gift on the basis of 

a personal friendship there cannot be reason to believe that, under the circumstances, the gift

was provided because of the official position of the Member, officer, or employee and not 

because of the personal friendship. 50 Here, the payment was made at the time that Mr. 

Hampton and the Senator were discussing Mr. Hampton leaving the Senator s employ, and there

is at the very least reason to believe that it was given because of his official position. The evidence establishes that Senator Ensign portrayed the payment as severance until 

his counsel advised that doing so raised potential criminal issues for the Senator, and that after 

this advice he changed his characterization of the payment from severance to a gift. The 

evidence supports Senator Ensign s many initial statements that it was severance and does not 

support his later characterization of it as a gift.

2. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Made 

False or Misleading Statements Concerning the Payment to the 

Hamptons

On August 11, 2009, as part of the FEC investigation, the senior Ensigns submitted 

sworn affidavits stating that, on their own accord and not at the request of Senator Ensign, they 

made a gift of $96,000 to the Hampton family. Senator Ensign also submitted a sworn affidavit

stating that the payment was a gift from his parents to the Hamptons and that he did not request 

that it be made.51 These affidavits contain misleading and potentially false statements.52 Michael Ensign himself disavowed under oath the statements in his affidavit that he paid 

 Hampton when he left the Senate payroll, ostensibly for unused vacation time. The evidence suggests, 

however, there were likely no vacation days available to Mr. Hampton upon his departure from the 

Senate, but Senator Ensign nevertheless authorized the payment to be made. 

49 Senate Rule 35.1(c)(4)(B) sets out the criteria used to determine whether a gift is made on the 

basis of personal friendship, as Senator Ensign and his parents have asserted. These include the history of 

the relationship between donor and donee, including any prior history of giving.

50 See Rule 35.1; see also Manual, at 26, 28.

51 Because the affidavits were substantially identical in all material respects and concerned 

allegations against Senator Ensign s campaign committees, there is a reasonable inference that Senator

Ensign participated in their drafting and/or review.

52 Special Counsel believes the facts to be contrary to the statements contained in the affidavits. It 

is a reasonable inference that Senator Ensign assisted in the preparation of the affidavits, and 

consequently involved his parents in a potential violation of law. 
58

expenses for the Hamptons on a trip to Hawaii in December 2006. The additional information 

recently received by the Committee provides more uncertainty than clarity regarding who 

actually paid for the trip expenses. In addition, the statements in the affidavits that the payments 

were a gift are inconsistent with substantial credible evidence that the payments were in fact 

severance, including the prior written statements by the Senator himself that they were 

severance. 

The Senator s multiple prior statements referring to severance were not available to the 

FEC when the agency dismissed the complaint against Senator Ensign s campaign in November

2010. The affidavits did not become available to the Committee until months later during the 

course of the Preliminary Inquiry. Submission of materially false affidavits implicates the false 

statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and Special Counsel submits there is substantial credible 

evidence that this has occurred with respect to the affidavits Senator Ensign and his parents 

submitted to the FEC.53 18 U.S.C. § 1505 likewise imposes criminal liability on any person who 

corruptly . . . obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and

proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any . . 

. committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress. Special Counsel submits

that there is substantial credible evidence which provides substantial cause for the Committee to 

conclude that Senator Ensign made false and misleading statements about the payments in 

violation of these statutes. 

3. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment Violated 

Senate Rule 38 and Statutory Prohibitions on Unofficial Accounts 

with Respect to Mr. Hampton

Both Senate Rule 38 and 2 U.S.C. § 59e(d) prohibit unofficial office accounts, namely, private donations, in cash or in kind, in support of official Senate activities or expenses.54

 Employee salaries may not be paid by private parties, but must be paid out of appropriated funds 

or a Senator s personal funds.55 Thus, if all or part of the $96,000 payment to the Hamptons was 

severance to Doug Hampton, then as an employee salary payment it would have to be paid from 

appropriated or personal funds and could not be paid by private parties such as the Senator s

 53 The False Statements Penalty Restoration Act, Pub. L. 104-292, makes clear that 18 U.S.C § 

1001 applies to all three branches of the government, including Congress. Several Congressmen and 

congressional staffers have been prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for salary kickback schemes. See, 

e.g., United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 1995); United States v. Collins, 56 F.3d 1416 

(D.C. Cir. 1995).

54 Manual, at 105.

55 Id. at 108. Rule 38.1(b) states that official expenses may be defrayed only as provided by 

subsections (d) and (i) of section 311 of the Legislative Appropriations Act, 1991 (P.L. 101 520). Subsection 311(d), codified at 2 U.S.C. § 59e(d), provides in relevant part that No Senator . . . may

maintain or use, directly or indirectly, an unofficial office account or defray official expenses for . . . 

employee salaries . . . from . . . (3) any other funds that are not specifically appropriated for official 

expenses. Section 311(i) provides that the funds referred to in paragraph (3) of [subsection 311(d)] 

shall not include personal funds of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives. 104 Stat. 

2281. Thus, as stated in the Rule and the Manual, the only permissible sources of funds for employee 

salaries are appropriated funds (per 311(d)) and personal funds (per 311(i)).
59

parents.56 A payment by a private party would violate 2 U.S.C. § 59e(d) and Senate Rule 

38.1(b). There is substantial credible evidence that a portion of the payment was in fact 

severance for Mr. Hampton, and therefore that such a violation occurred. 

This conclusion establishes a likely motive for Senator Ensign to describe the payment as 

a gift even if it was severance. Since the payment was from private funds, namely those of his 

parents, it was illegal if it was severance rather than a gift. Faced with a situation in which he 

had to mischaracterize either the nature of the payment or the source of the funds in order to 

avoid admitting a violation of law, Senator Ensign apparently chose not to say anything initially 

about the payment after receiving advice from his counsel that it raised potential criminal issues 

for the Senator. However, after Mr. Hampton disclosed the payment in a television interview, 

Senator Ensign released a statement describing the payment as a gift. The consequences of that 

choice are explained in the discussion of false statement liability above.

4. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment with 

Respect to Ms. Hampton Constituted an Unlawful and Unreported 

Campaign Contribution 

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ( FECA ), a third party s payment of

a political committee s administrative expenses, including salary of a committee s employee, is

considered a contribution to the political committee.57 Contributions are subject to amount 

limits, and receipt of any excessive contribution is a violation of FECA. Failure to report 

receiving a contribution above a certain amount is also a violation. The statutory language 

applies when a defendant s funds go to a campaign either directly from him, or through an

intermediary.58 FECA restricts any person from contributing more than $2,000 per year (adjusted for 

inflation) to a candidate s authorized political committee, such as Ensign for Senate ( EFS ).59 Contributions to other political committees are limited to $5,000 per year.60 BattleBorn PAC 

was an other committee for these purposes. FECA also prohibits receiving as well as making

excessive contributions. No candidate or political committee shall knowingly accept any 

 56 See Manual, at 107 ( As stated in Committee Interpretative Ruling 444 interpreting Rule 38, however, neither official nor officially related expenses, goods, or services used in the operation of a 

Senator s office may be provided or paid for by private parties. ). 57 2 U.S.C. § 431(8)(A)(defining contribution to include the payment by any person of

compensation for the personal services of another person which are rendered to a political committee 

without charge for any purpose. ). 58 Id. 59 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(A)( Except as provided in subsection (i) of this section and section 441a 1 

of this title, no person shall make contributions (A) to any candidate and his authorized political 

committees with respect to any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed $2,000. ). 60 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(C)( Except as provided in subsection (i) of this section and section 441a 1 

of this title, no person shall make contributions (C) to any other political committee (other than a 

committee described in subparagraph (D)) in any calendar year which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000. ).
60

contribution or make any expenditure in violation of the provisions of this section. 61 The 

knowing standard that is used here, as opposed to a knowing and willful standard, does not

require knowledge that one is violating the law, but merely requires an intent to act. 62 Finally, 

FECA requires disclosure of the identity of any person who contributes more than $200 per 

election cycle to an authorized committee of a federal candidate, or more than $200 per year to 

any other political committee.63 Criminal penalties apply to knowing and willful violations of 

the requirements on making, receiving, or reporting contributions. If Ms. Hampton s share of the

$96,000 payment constituted severance upon her departure from her jobs at EFS and BattleBorn 

PAC, then the payment was an illegal and unreported contribution to each under the above legal 

standards. The Senator and each committee would have violated the prohibition on receipt of 

excessive contributions and the requirement to report the donors. 

The FEC has exclusive jurisdiction with respect to civil enforcement of provisions of 

FECA.64 The staff of the FEC found reason to believe that at least part of the $96,000 transfer

was a severance payment to Ms. Hampton, and thus was an excessive contribution from Michael 

and Sharon Ensign. Further, this transaction was not reported by the Committee or the PAC. 65 Although the FEC staff attorneys recommended a full FEC investigation into this matter, the 

FEC ultimately declined to investigate, reasoning among other things that the Ensigns

affidavits support Respondents contention that the transfer was intended as a gift and not as a

severance payment. 66 As noted above, substantial credible evidence subsequently uncovered 

during the Committee s Preliminary Inquiry indicates that the payments were in fact severance. Special Counsel submits that the findings and recommendation of the FEC s staff are persuasive

in light of this substantial credible evidence, and that there is substantial and credible evidence 

that gives substantial cause to conclude that violations of the FECA occurred. 

5. Even if Senator Ensign s Assertions That the Payment Was a Gift

Were Credible, Senate Rule 35 Would Have Been Violated

Rule 35.1(c)(4)(A) exempts from the gift limits [a]nything provided by an individual on

the basis of a personal friendship unless the Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe 

that, under the circumstances, the gift was provided because of the official position of the 

Member, officer, or employee and not because of the personal friendship. Doug Hampton was 

a Senate employee when he received his share of the $96,000 payment on or about April 9, 2008 

and thus was subject to the gift limits. Rule 35.1(c)(4)(B) further provides that the history of the 

relationship between the individual giving the gift and the recipient of the gift, including any 

previous exchange of gifts between such individuals, is important in determining if the gift is 

truly given on the basis of personal friendship.

 61 2 U.S.C. § 441a(f).

62 FEC v. Malenick, 310 F. Supp. 2d 230, 237 n.9 (D.D.C. 2004) (citing FEC v. John A. Dramesi 

for Congress Comm., 640 F. Supp. 985, 987 (D. N.J. 1986).

63 2 U.S.C. § 434(b)(3)(A).

64 Malenick, 310 F. Supp. 2d at 233 (citing 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(1)).

65 First General Counsel Report, MUR 6200 (Mar. 31, 2010), at 2. 66 FEC Statement of Reasons, MUR 6200 (Nov. 17, 2010), at 9.
61

Although gifts motivated solely by personal friendship between the giver and the 

Member, officer, or employee are permissible, such gifts may not be of a value greater than 

$250, unless the recipient receives approval from the Committee.67 Thus, even if the payment 

were a gift as Senator Ensign has asserted, it would still have violated Senate Rule 35.1(e), 

which requires prior approval of the Ethics Committee if a gift valued over $250 is to be 

received on the basis of personal friendship.68 Senator Ensign avers that he became aware of this 

payment in April 2008, yet there is no evidence that he advised either his parents or Mr. 

Hampton to seek the required approval of the gift, or to make the required disclosure. Special 

Counsel submits that there is a strong inference that the Senator had no intention of, or interest 

in, urging compliance with Rule 35.1(e), both because at the time he considered the payment to 

be severance and not a gift, and because he wanted the payment to be made in secret and kept 

secret. The required disclosure, and the resulting need to explain the payment to the Ethics 

Committee, would have been inconsistent with the pattern of concealment that surrounded the 

Senator s conduct with respect to this payment.

C. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Permitted 

Spoliation and Engaged in Obstruction of Justice

Special Counsel submits that there is substantial credible evidence of instances of 

spoliation and destruction of evidence by Senator Ensign and his staff.69 Senator Ensign and 

his staff were subject to a number of document preservation duties and requirements. Senator 

Ensign s counsel has acknowledged that he anticipated litigation with respect to the matters

related to the Preliminary Inquiry as of June 16, 2009, and possibly earlier when he may have 

begun preparing for litigation. Senator Ensign s office issued a document preservation notice on

October 13, 2009, and the Committee issued a formal document preservation notice to Senator 

Ensign with respect to the Preliminary Inquiry on October 21, 2009.

As further discussed above, Senator Ensign permitted his staff to delete and replace his 

personal Gmail account containing emails related to Senate activities on October 1, 2009, and he 

acknowledged in a subsequent affidavit that he had continued to routinely delete emails from his 

home desktop computer as well as his personal Gmail email account following the issuance of 

preservation notices. This is significant because the Gmail account was deleted and, therefore, 

not subject to review by the Committee or Special Counsel. 

Additionally, forensic analysis and document review undertaken during the Preliminary 

Inquiry indicated that up to 174 emails may have been deleted following the issuance of the 

preservation notices. By the creation dates of the emails themselves, at least five (5) were 

 67 Rule 35.1(e).

68 By the same token, if the assertion is credited that Senator Ensign's parents paid the expenses of 

the December, 2006 Hawaii vacation, Mr. Hampton's share of that should also have been submitted to the 

Committee for approval, as he was a Senate employee at the time and his share was well in excess of 

$250.

69 In the civil context, spoliation refers to the destruction or material alteration of evidence or to the 

failure to preserve property for another s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. See, e.g., West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 779 (2d Cir. 1999).
62

deleted from Senator Ensign s laptop following the preservation notice, including a draft

document Senator Ensign prepared that is highly relevant to his assertion that the payment to the 

Hamptons was not a severance payment.70

The apparent destruction of evidence relevant to a Senate investigation is a possible 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505.71 Such actions also implicate 18 U.S.C. § 1519.72

D. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Engaged in 

Improper Conduct Reflecting Upon the Senate, Including Violations of His 

Own Senate Office Policies

1. The Applicable Standard

The Committee s authorizing resolution, Senate Resolution 338, empowers it to 

investigate not only violations of law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and the rules and 

regulations of the Senate, but also improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate. This

improper conduct standard has formed the basis for many important actions of the Committee 

and of the Senate. As set out in the Senate Ethics Manual:

[c]ertain conduct has been deemed by the Senate in prior cases to 

be unethical and improper even though such conduct may not 

necessarily have violated any written law, or Senate rule or 

regulation. Such conduct has been characterized as improper

conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, and has provided the

basis for the Senate s most serious disciplinary cases in modern

times.73

 70 See, e.g., Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir. 2001) ( The duty to

preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before the 

litigation when a party reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated 

litigation. ). 71 An individual violates 18 U.S.C. § 1505 when it is established that 1) there was a proceeding

pending before a department or agency of the United States; 2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably 

founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and 3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, 

obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was 

pending. United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 163 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). A defendant need not 

succeed in his endeavor to obstruct, and the corrupt nature of the endeavor simply means that he was

motivated by an improper purpose. Id. at 164.

72 This statutory provision was enacted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The elements of a

Section 1519 violation include (1) an investigation or other matter within the jurisdiction of a department 

or agency of the United States must have been pending or contemplated by such department or agency of 

the United States; (2) the defendant must have been aware of the pending or contemplated matter or 

investigation; and (3) the defendant must have knowingly altered, concealed, mutilated, or destroyed 

something with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the pending or contemplated matter or 

investigation, or any matter in relation to the pending or contemplated matter or investigation. United 

States v. Perraud, 672 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2009).

73 Manual, Appendix E, at 432.
63

This Committee and the Senate have frequently noted that even if conduct does not 

constitute an actionable violation of law, Senators must meet a much higher standard of 

conduct.74 Additionally, "[a] Senator is extended an extraordinary measure of trust and 

confidence not given to ordinary members of society. The Senate must therefore require higher 

standards of conduct than those generally required in the marketplace. 75 2. Application of the Improper Conduct Standard

The findings above outline substantial credible evidence that gives substantial cause to 

conclude that Senator Ensign violated several statutes and Senate Rules. Given that the improper 

conduct standard is higher than merely avoiding actionable violations of law, it necessarily 

follows that the standard is contravened by violations of law or Senate rule, and particularly so if, 

as is the case here, the law or rule is itself addressed to matters of ethics. 

An example of the need for a standard of improper conduct that goes beyond compliance 

with the criminal law is provided by Senator Ensign s argument that the law does not in any way

reach the recipient of an illegal post employment contact, and covers only the person making the 

contact. The Senator s counsel went so far as to suggest during the course of the Preliminary 

Inquiry that because there is no written rule or guidance expressly directing Senate personnel to 

rebuff contacts by covered former members or employees, or to avoid such contacts, they are 

 74 See, e.g., Senator Roland W. Burris, Public Letter of Qualified Admonition (Nov. 20, 2009), at 1 

( While the Committee did not find that the evidence before it supported any actionable violations of law, 

Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct. Senate Resolution 338 gives this Committee the 

authority and responsibility to investigate Members who may engage in improper conduct which may

reflect upon the Senate. ) These standards have also been incorporated into the Senate Ethics Manual. 

Appendix E to the Manual notes that the Senate expressly rejected a proposal that would have given the 

Committee the authority to investigate only alleged violations of the rules of the Senate in favor of the 

language now contained in Senate Resolution 338, which allows the Committee to receive complaints of 

unethical, improper, or illegal conduct of members. Discussing this language, Senator Case noted that the 

Committee would not be limited to alleged violations of Senate rules, but it would take into account all

improper conduct of any kind whatsoever. Manual, App. E, at 432-33, citing S. Rep. 88-125 at 13 

(1964).

75 S. Rep. 90-1015, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. at 3 (1968). The Manual identifies a number of specific 

cases in which discipline was imposed even though no violation of a specific law or rule was found. In 

1929, Senator Bingham was censured for hiring the lobbyist for a manufacturers association as his clerk

while he continued to be on salary to the association, as the conduct was contrary to good morals and

senatorial ethics and thus tended to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute. In 1954, the Senate 

condemned Senator Joseph McCarthy for his lack of cooperation with and abuse of two Senate 

committees that investigated his conduct. The conduct did not violate any law, rule, or regulation, but 

was deemed to violate accepted standards and values of comity and civility controlling Senators conduct. Finally, in 1991 the Committee concluded that Senator Cranston engaged in an impermissible pattern of 

conduct that substantially linked fund raising and official activities, and that this violated established 

norms of behavior in the Senate, and was improper conduct that reflects upon the Senate. Manual, App. E at 434-35, citing S. Rep. No. 102-223 at 36 (1991). The Committee specifically found that none of 

Senator Cranston s activities violated any law or Senate Rule.
64

under no obligation to do so. However, the evidence showed that several of the Senator s staff, immediately after the first of Mr. Hampton s contacts, refused to have any contact with Mr. Hampton, alerted others on the staff not to do so, and consulted with the Ethics Committee. This 

standard of conduct is a fully appropriate one against which to measure Senator Ensign s actions, regardless of any separate requirements of law or rule.

Another example is offered by the allegations, raised in the initial CREW complaint in 

this Preliminary Inquiry, that Senator Ensign discriminated on the basis of sex in the form of 

sexual harassment of Ms. Hampton. Senator Ensign, through counsel, cited several procedural 

and jurisdictional bases on which he would not be subject to a claim under the employment laws 

for such conduct: (1) that Ms. Hampton was not a Senate employee so that Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 was not applicable to her through the Congressional Accountability Act 

( CAA ),76 (2) that she was not covered directly under Title VII because the offices in which she 

was employed had fewer than fifteen employees,77 and (3) that neither of the Hamptons had filed 

a charge of discrimination within the prescribed time period.78 While these arguments might 

preclude the Hamptons from invoking EEOC, judicial, or Senate remedies for employment 

claims, the obligation of Members to refrain from improper conduct that constitutes sex 

discrimination is not dependent on the various procedural and jurisdictional requirements of Title 

VII itself.79 Members and employees of the Senate are also prohibited by Senate Rule 42 from 

engaging in employment discrimination. Similarly, although the CAA establishes a procedure 

outside the Senate to seek relief for violations of these provisions, that procedure does not limit 

the Committee s separate and independent authority to discipline a Member, officer, or employee

of the Senate for a violation of these provisions. The Ethics Committee s authority to

recommend discipline of a Member, officer, or employee of the Senate is not affected by passage 

or implementation of the Congressional Accountability Act. 80

There would be no sound reason to conclude that a Senator who is barred from 

discriminating against employees in his Senate office is nonetheless free to engage in precisely 

the same conduct with respect to employees of his political committees, without any fear that it 

 76 Under the CAA, a covered employee includes any employee of the Senate. 2 U.S.C. § 1301(2). 

The CAA provides that [a]ll personnel actions affecting covered employees shall be made free from any 

discrimination based on (1) race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, within the meaning of section 

703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e 2). 2 U.S.C. § 1311(a).

77 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.

78 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

79 The Supreme Court has held that a Congressman who dismissed a female staff member on the 

basis of her sex could be sued for a violation of the Equal Protection Component of the Due Process 

Clause even if he was not subject to Title VII. See Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979). In a ruling 

not affected by the Supreme Court s subsequent decision, the court of appeals had held that the staffer s

suit was not barred by the speech or debate clause. Because this Preliminary Inquiry is by the Senate 

itself, through the Committee, the Clause is not implicated at all here, because it applies only to the 

questioning of a Senator s legislative acts in any other Place. See, e.g., United States v. Brewster, 408 

U.S. 501, 541, 547 (1972) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (stating that Brewster could have been disciplined by 

the Senate even if he could not be prosecuted due to the Speech and Debate Clause). 80 Manual, at 194-95.
65

could be considered improper conduct reflecting on the Senate. Similarly, it would make no 

sense to conclude that harassment that would violate Title VII when conducted in a workplace of 

more than fifteen employees could not violate the improper conduct standard if the workplace 

happened to have fourteen employees or fewer. Nothing in the improper conduct standard 

contains or suggests such an illogical limitation. Simply put, the Committee is protecting the 

interests of the Senate in enforcing appropriate standards of behavior of its Members, not 

adjudicating the personal rights of the wronged party. 

Accordingly, if Senator Ensign s conduct would constitute sex discrimination under the 

standards that have been developed under Title VII, it would also constitute improper conduct 

reflecting on the Senate. In response to the CREW complaint, Senator Ensign, through counsel, 

asserted that his conduct could not constitute sexual harassment because, unlike a prior case 

involving Senator Packwood cited in the complaint, here there was no forced sexual contact

with Ms. Hampton and the affair was instead consensual. Special Counsel submits that under the 

proper legal standards there is substantial credible evidence that gives cause to conclude that the 

Senator did discriminate against Ms. Hampton on the basis of sex, and that Mr. Hampton was 

also a victim of that discrimination.

In assessing a claim of sexual harassment, the correct inquiry is whether respondent, by

her conduct, indicated that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome, not whether her actual 

participation in sexual intercourse was voluntary. 81 Voluntariness in the sense of consent is

not a defense to such a claim. 82 If conduct is unwelcome, then it is sexual harassment if 

submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment

decisions affecting such individual. 83 There is substantial credible evidence that the Senator determined that the affair made it 

impossible for either of the Hamptons to continue working for him. The Senator himself drafted 

a written statement to that effect. If the affair was unwelcome to Ms. Hampton, that 

determination would thus constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. 

Senator Ensign had enormous power over Ms. Hampton. He controlled the sole sources 

of income for both Ms. Hampton and her husband.84 He controlled separate payments made on 

the Hamptons behalf so that their children could attend an expensive private school with the 

 81 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 68 (1986). Harassment on the basis of sex is a form 

of sex discrimination. Id. at 64. Sexual harassment of an employee is a violation of Senate Rule 42, the 

prohibitions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as made applicable to the legislative branch by 

the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, and of the equal protection component of the Due Process 

Clause.

82 Id. at 69.

83 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). 

84 One prominent commentator has suggested that there is no such thing as truly welcome sex

between a male boss and a female employee who needs her job, and proposed a per se rule prohibiting 

supervisors from having sexual relations with those who work directly for them. Susan Estrich, Sex at 

Work, 43 STAN. L. REV. 813 at 831, 860 (1991). The courts have not gone so far, but many employers 

have. 
66

Ensign children. He had strong personal ties to the entire Hampton family as well. Ms. 

Hampton testified that the affair caused her considerable emotional distress, that the Senator was 

extremely persistent in seeking to continue it, that she never initiated any contact with the 

Senator, and that if he had ended his pursuit of her after they were first confronted at Christmas 

2007, the affair would have ended then soon after it began. Ms. Hampton testified that she 

became very despondent after the affair was first discovered (a fact Mr. Hampton confirmed), 

and that the Senator would not stop, kept calling and calling, and would not take no for an

answer. If the affair had ended when the Senator had first committed to end it, the likelihood 

that it would have led to the Hamptons being terminated from their employment would have 

been greatly reduced, if not entirely eliminated.

The danger inherent in such relationships is one reason why the Senate Chief Counsel for 

Employment makes available draft language for office anti-fraternization policies, each of which 

precludes a romantic relationship from continuing between a supervisor and his or her 

subordinate. The specific language of the policy in Senator Ensign s office changed over time, but always precluded a supervisor and a subordinate from carrying on a romantic relationship, 

much less an affair.85 Senator Ensign s continuation of the affair with Ms. Hampton violated this

principle and led to the more vulnerable party losing her job, the very consequence that the 

policy seeks to prevent.

Mr. Hampton was also adversely affected by the Senator s conduct, because he was told

he could not continue in the Senator s employ as a result of the affair. Senator Ensign himself 

prepared a written statement that the affair was the reason Mr. Hampton could no longer work 

for him. The Senator has never stated that he fired Mr. Hampton for any performance-related 

reasons. Mr. Hampton did not consent to his wife s affair, but to the contrary was repeatedly

told it would end. Moreover, Ms. Hampton testified that Senator Ensign wanted her husband out 

of his office in order to facilitate continuing the affair, as among other things Mr. Hampton was 

aware of the Senator s scheduling. The Supreme Court has, as recently as this term, recognized

that an employee s spouse can be the direct and intended victim of discrimination against the

employee.86

There is substantial credible evidence that Senator Ensign violated his own office 

policies. Special Counsel also notes that in setting out sexual harassment, nonfraternization, and 

 85 See Ensign Office Manual (February 1, 2008), Section 2.29.3, at 30 ( If a romantic or sexual

relationship develops between coworkers, one of those employees (to be decided mutually by the two 

employees) will be required to resign from the staff. ) (emphasis added); Ensign Office Manual (June 8, 

2009), Section 2.29.3, at 34 ( If a supervisor and subordinate wish to date, one of them will be required to

resign from the staff or to apply for a transfer to another open position, if one exists, for which the 

individual is qualified and for which the supervisor-subordinate relationship would no longer exist. ). Ms. Hampton made it abundantly clear she did not want to lose her job over the affair.

86 See Thompson v. N. Amer. Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. 863, 870 (2011)(finding that fiancé fired in 

alleged retaliation for his fiancée s Title VII complaint was not an accidental victim of the retaliation

collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer s unlawful act. To the contrary, injuring him was the

employer s intended means of harming the other [fiancée]. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which 

the employer punished her. In those circumstances, we think [plaintiff] well within the zone of interests 

sought to be protected by Title VII. ).
67

other important policies that Senator Ensign himself violated, the Senator s Office Manual

provides for termination as a potential consequence of such violations. Special Counsel submits 

that conduct that would subject one of the Senator s own employees to termination should also

be considered improper conduct reflecting on the Senate if engaged in by the Senator himself. 

V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

This Report also provides additional recommendations with respect to guidance the 

Committee should provide to each Senate office to emphasize compliance and minimize the risk 

that similar events reflecting negatively on the Senate might arise in the future. The Special 

Counsel also recommends that certain Senate policies be enhanced in order to provide clear 

guidance to the Senate s Members and Staff. Specifically, the Special Counsel recommends

that:

1. The Senate Ethics Committee or the Senate Legal Counsel should issue clear and 

direct guidance that erases any question or doubt as to the scope of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 207, including issues that have been raised in this case: (1) the taint of a

contact when the contact comes from a prohibited person even when the contact is 

for a long-standing constituent; (2) eliminating any de minimis or 

informational exception that may have been informally grafted onto the statute

by ethics practitioners and individuals; and (3) reinforces and/or provides 

guidance to each Senate Office about the law which makes clear that a Senator or 

a staff member can be held responsible for aiding and abetting an 18 U.S.C. § 207 

violation, or conspiring to violate that statute, and can be subject to criminal 

prosecution for the same. 

2. The Committee should provide guidance to each Senate Office about appropriate 

document retention policies, including policies related to electronically stored 

information, for all offices. Relatedly, the Committee may wish to examine what 

role, if any, it has in providing guidance to Senate offices about how they should 

structure and preserve their communications given the official nature of each 

office and the requirements of the law governing spoliation in civil litigation and 

document destruction and obstruction of justice in criminal investigations.

3. Finally, as noted above, the Committee should refer matters outlined herein to the 

Department of Justice and Federal Election Commission, as approved, for further 

investigation and consideration of whether criminal prosecution of Senator Ensign 

is warranted for aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 207, or conspiring 

to violate that statute, for making false statements, for obstruction of justice, and 

for violations of federal campaign laws.

The Special Counsel wishes to thank the Committee for the confidence and trust it placed 

in her and her team to provide the assistance requested in as timely and as professional a manner 

as possible. She and her team worked in close coordination with the Committee s excellent staff, benefiting from the efficiencies of drawing on the staff s previous work product, their

institutional and case knowledge, and their on-going efforts and insights in this important matter.