Supt. Walters settles ethics complaint, still faces separate investigation
The agreement comes as Walters remains under a separate ethics investigation into alleged campaign finance violations.
The complaint Walters settled this week stemmed from multiple social media posts he made to his X account leading up to the November election.
Walters' X account, which displayed his official state portrait as its profile picture, used Walters' official state office title, 'Superintendent Ryan Walters' in the account name.
The account's handle, @RyanWaltersSupt, also included an abbreviation of his official 'Superintendent' title.
On the account, Walters posted videos of himself to his X account endorsing President Trump and urging Oklahomans to vote for him in the weeks leading up to the November 2024 election.
'The biggest threat out there to our U.S. economy, our parents, our kids—is Kamala Harris,' Walters said a clip he shared of himself on Fox Business Network.
'The administration, Kamala Harris, has ignored this crisis, has ignored this issue,' he said in another, taken from an appearance on Fox & Friends.
Ethics Commission settlement reached with State Supt. Ryan Walters
In another video, Walters encouraged people to vote for President Donald Trump.
'I encourage everybody to get out today, vote for President Trump,' he said.
The Oklahoma State Department of Education's official social media accounts also shared politically charged messages during that time, a move legal experts say was risky.
'It's against ethics rules to use anything official for campaign purposes,' attorney Ed Blau said.
The Oklahoma Ethics Commission launched an investigation into Walters' social media use in January, ultimately leading to this week's settlement.
'And in this particular case, when you use your official portrait, when you use your official title and advocate for the election of a person or people, I mean, that's campaigning,' Blau said. 'You're just simply not allowed to do that.'
As part of his settlement with the Ethics Commission, Walters agreed to pay a $5,000 fine, remove his official state portrait from his personal social media, and take the word 'Superintendent' out of his account's title and handle.
He made those changes on Tuesday.
Oklahoma Ethics Commission votes to pursue prosecution against State Supt. Walters
'In my opinion, it was a pretty run-of-the-mill settlement agreement,' Blau said. 'It was something meant to both deter future behavior and to kind of send a message to other elected officials who may try to do something like this.'
However, Walters still faces a second investigation by the Ethics Commission, which is looking into whether he violated campaign finance laws during his 2022 run for state superintendent.
Last week, the commission voted to prosecute Walters in civil court over those allegations.
'It goes through the regular court process. There's discovery. In the end, there could be a trial, and either a judge or a jury could make a determination,' Blau said.
Legal experts say the decision to take Walters to court is a sign that the Ethics Commission is taking the allegations particularly serious.
'Ethics probes aren't unusual. But for something to go forward where there's an actual lawsuit filed against a sitting statewide elected official, it is pretty unusual,' Blau said.
News 4 reached out to the Oklahoma State Department of Education for a response from Walters.
'Superintendent Walters has always committed to following all guidelines and transparency in his political operations,' his spokesperson said in a statement.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Lane County's administrator was fired in 2013 amid scandal. Her ethics case is still open
On Aug. 8, the panel responsible for evaluating local government ethics will vote whether to formally dismiss an almost 12-year-old case against former Lane County Administrator Liane Richardson. In 2013, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission began investigating Richardson, who Lane County Commissioners fired that August with an agreement neither party would sue the other after she was promoted on an interim basis in 2010 and hired permanently in 2011. Commissioners said Richardson cashed out PTO and deferred payment in violation of county policy. This occurred while Richardson oversaw the county as it faced a $13.5 million budget shortfall which led to the county laying off employees, proposing forced furloughs and Richardson publicly declining a controversial pay raise. The initial version of the report that led to her firing was highly redacted, and the full version, released later, was unclear on whether Richardson acted entirely on her own or with the tacit approval of county commissioners. Subsequent investigation also found she had pressured the Human Resources director to recommend that raise, and appointed a city of Eugene police officer, with whom her husband alleged she was having an affair, to an internal county committee that recommended approval of her deferred pay cashout, and had scheduled him to attend an out-of-state conference with her and other county employees. In the fall out, Marion County's District Attorney declined to press charges, but the state bar association rejected Richardson's application over her conduct as Lane County administrator. State Ethics Commission staff have recommended the state board drop its investigation into Richardson at its Aug. 8 meeting, saying given the amount of time that has passed "there would be significant difficulties with presenting relevant information and testimony." Alan Torres covers local government for the Register-Guard. He can be reached by email at atorres@ on X @alanfryetorres or on Reddit at u/AlfrytRG. This article originally appeared on Register-Guard: Ethics case of Liane Richardson again in front of board Solve the daily Crossword
San Francisco Chronicle
6 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A top Republican in the Georgia governor's race is suing his rival over campaign financing
ATLANTA (AP) — One of the top Republicans running for Georgia governor on Thursday sued the other leading GOP candidate, challenging the legality of the rival's campaign funding. Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr sued Lt. Gov. Burt Jones in federal court in Atlanta, asking a judge to permanently cut off Jones' ability to spend money from Jones' leadership committee, a special fundraising vehicle that allows Georgia's governor, lieutenant governor and legislative leaders to raise unlimited funds. Jones and Carr are among the candidates competing for the Republican nomination to succeed term-limited Gov. Brian Kemp. The GOP primary is next May, followed by the November 2026 general election, which is expected to be one of the most expensive gubernatorial races in the country. Carr argues that the leadership committee violates Carr's First Amendment right to free speech as well as his 14th Amendment right to equal protection by setting up a campaign finance structure that favors Jones and limits how much Carr can spend on his campaign. The 2021 state law that created leadership committees doesn't grant Carr or other candidates access to the fundraising vehicle. Instead, Carr only has a regular campaign committee which is limited to raising $8,400 from each donor for his primary campaign, as well as $4,200 for any primary runoff. Carr spokesperson Julia Mazzone said Jones 'is using his position to sidestep contribution limits, raise six-figure checks during legislative sessions and funnel unlimited money into a competitive primary through a structure only he can access.' Jones' campaign spokesperson Kendyl Parker called Carr a hypocrite because his office in 2022 defended the same law he is now challenging. Carr's position has been that the attorney general is obligated to defend challenged laws even if he personally disagrees with them. Parker did not address the substance of Carr's lawsuit. Carr announced his run for governor last year, saying he needed longer to raise money because he isn't personally wealthy. Carr's campaign has been voicing concerns for months that Jones will use his leadership committee and family wealth to win the primary. The Carr campaign tried to get the state Ethics Commission to investigate the source of a $10 million loan that Jones made to his leadership committee, but the commission declined, saying Carr failed to allege a legal violation. Carr's campaign cited a 2022 federal judge's ruling that a leadership committee for Kemp could not spend money to get Kemp reelected during the Republican primary that year. U.S. District Judge Mark Cohen found that the 'unequal campaign finance scheme' violated challenger David Perdue's First Amendment right to free speech. But Carr wants much more extensive restrictions on Jones' leadership committee than Cohen ordered. Cohen let Kemp keep raising money for the leadership committee, just saying Kemp couldn't spend it against Perdue. But Carr wants a judge to cut off both fundraising and spending until the primary is over. He also asks that a federal magistrate judge be appointed to oversee all spending by the committee and that Jones' regular campaign committee repay any money already spent by the leadership committee to support Jones. Carr asks the court to block Jones from giving any cash to dark money groups and making any loans to his regular campaign committee during the primary, and wants the magistrate judge to investigate where Jones' $10 million loan came from. Carr has pointed to a 2022 financial disclosure that showed Jones didn't have enough liquid assets to loan his campaign that much. Carr's campaign continues to voice concern that Jones could raise unlimited sums to repay his loan and then give the repaid money to his candidate committee to spend in the primary, warning that such laundering would destroy campaign contribution limits.
7 days ago
A top Republican in the Georgia governor's race is suing his rival over campaign financing
ATLANTA -- One of the top Republicans running for Georgia governor on Thursday sued the other leading GOP candidate, challenging the legality of the rival's campaign funding. Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr sued Lt. Gov. Burt Jones in federal court in Atlanta, asking a judge to permanently cut off Jones' ability to spend money from Jones' leadership committee, a special fundraising vehicle that allows Georgia's governor, lieutenant governor and legislative leaders to raise unlimited funds. Jones and Carr are among the candidates competing for the Republican nomination to succeed term-limited Gov. Brian Kemp. The GOP primary is next May, followed by the November 2026 general election, which is expected to be one of the most expensive gubernatorial races in the country. Carr argues that the leadership committee violates Carr's First Amendment right to free speech as well as his 14th Amendment right to equal protection by setting up a campaign finance structure that favors Jones and limits how much Carr can spend on his campaign. The 2021 state law that created leadership committees doesn't grant Carr or other candidates access to the fundraising vehicle. Instead, Carr only has a regular campaign committee which is limited to raising $8,400 from each donor for his primary campaign, as well as $4,200 for any primary runoff. Carr spokesperson Julia Mazzone said Jones 'is using his position to sidestep contribution limits, raise six-figure checks during legislative sessions and funnel unlimited money into a competitive primary through a structure only he can access.' Jones' campaign spokesperson Kendyl Parker called Carr a hypocrite because his office in 2022 defended the same law he is now challenging. Carr's position has been that the attorney general is obligated to defend challenged laws even if he personally disagrees with them. Parker did not address the substance of Carr's lawsuit. Carr announced his run for governor last year, saying he needed longer to raise money because he isn't personally wealthy. Carr's campaign has been voicing concerns for months that Jones will use his leadership committee and family wealth to win the primary. The Carr campaign tried to get the state Ethics Commission to investigate the source of a $10 million loan that Jones made to his leadership committee, but the commission declined, saying Carr failed to allege a legal violation. Carr's campaign cited a 2022 federal judge's ruling that a leadership committee for Kemp could not spend money to get Kemp reelected during the Republican primary that year. U.S. District Judge Mark Cohen found that the 'unequal campaign finance scheme' violated challenger David Perdue's First Amendment right to free speech. But Carr wants much more extensive restrictions on Jones' leadership committee than Cohen ordered. Cohen let Kemp keep raising money for the leadership committee, just saying Kemp couldn't spend it against Perdue. But Carr wants a judge to cut off both fundraising and spending until the primary is over. He also asks that a federal magistrate judge be appointed to oversee all spending by the committee and that Jones' regular campaign committee repay any money already spent by the leadership committee to support Jones. Carr asks the court to block Jones from giving any cash to dark money groups and making any loans to his regular campaign committee during the primary, and wants the magistrate judge to investigate where Jones' $10 million loan came from. Carr has pointed to a 2022 financial disclosure that showed Jones didn't have enough liquid assets to loan his campaign that much. Carr's campaign continues to voice concern that Jones could raise unlimited sums to repay his loan and then give the repaid money to his candidate committee to spend in the primary, warning that such laundering would destroy campaign contribution limits. Carr's campaign has also asked the Ethics Commission for an advisory legal opinion on whether Jones' activity is legal.
