A review of federal records by 5 On Your Side found the payments, a wire transfer that couldn’t be reconciled and a seven-week overdue disclosure.
ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) — Former Rep. Cori Bush, seeking to win back the St. Louis congressional seat she lost in 2024, funneled money through two political action committees she controlled to pay herself and her husband salaries, according to a review of federal campaign finance records by 5 On Your Side.
The records show that in February 2025, Bush’s leadership committee, Politivist LPAC, transferred $18,000 to a second committee she had formed weeks earlier, Politivist Action PAC. Two days later, Action PAC began paying salaries from its non-contributory account during the year: $14,500 to Bush and $11,000 to her husband, Cortney Merritts.
Such payments occupy a gray area that campaign finance watchdogs have pointed out for years.
Federal law prohibits candidates from converting campaign funds for personal use, but the Federal Election Commission has ruled that the ban does not extend to leadership PACs or other unaffiliated committees, the type of committees at issue here. The Commission has repeatedly called on Congress to close this loophole, but to no avail.
Bush was also not a declared candidate at the time of the payments; She submitted her candidacy in October 2025. However, the salaries would violate the law if they did not represent fair compensation for real work, a question the review was unable to resolve based on the documents alone.
Two features of the records attracted further scrutiny.
The non-contributory account through which salaries were paid is used to fund independent expenditures and political advertising without coordination with a campaign. Over a 14-month period, the account had no independent spending at all, instead funneling its money into salaries, fundraising consultants and software.
And the $18,000 transfer that preceded the salaries appears as a receipt in Action PAC’s report, but not as a disbursement in Politivist LPAC’s own 2025 filings, including its final termination report. In other words, the affidavit reports from the two committees do not agree.
Anita Manion, a political scientist at the University of Missouri-St. Louis said the use of the independent expenditure account was the central concern: “The biggest problem I see is that these expenditures come out of an independent expenditure account…The only thing you can’t do is coordinate with the campaign. So if payments come out of the independent expenditure account and go to the candidate and her significant other, that could be problematic.”
Bush’s campaign declined to answer detailed questions about the payments, transfer or lack of independent expenditures. A spokesman, Ben Cook, said the campaign cannot address matters involving the PAC.
“To honor Firewall, the campaign cannot comment on behalf of the PAC,” he wrote. “I recommend contacting the PAC directly.”
When asked again, he replied: “I just want to reiterate the last answer. The campaign cannot comment on behalf of the PAC.” Neither PAC responded to repeated requests. The phone number led to a men’s clothing store in Las Vegas.
The firewall led by Cook limits coordination between candidates and outside groups. This does not prevent a candidate from declaring her own compensation, nor does it apply to the personal financial disclosures of a candidate who Bush was required to file as a 2026 candidate by May 15 and, as of this reporting, has not done so more than seven weeks after the deadline.
The campaign’s only statement did not directly address the questions posed. It defended the campaign’s payments to Merritts for security work. This money was initially reported as security and later reclassified as wages. It also became the subject of a federal investigation that resulted in no charges. The campaign justified these payments to its own budget by citing apparent threats against Bush.
“It is no surprise to anyone that the far right would target a black veteran who stood up for someone’s safety,” Bush said in the statement. “Anyone who opposes the MAGA movement must take additional measures to protect their personal safety.”
The financing review is not one-sided. Bush’s opponent, Rep. Wesley Bell, was boosted in 2024 by heavy spending by pro-Israel groups that was among the highest in any House election in the country, and federal records show that a significant portion of his money continues to come from donors tied to the AIPAC network. This money is legal and will be disclosed.
“Everyone has to raise money. That’s how it works,” Bell said. “I have advocated for getting a lot of money out of politics and have spoken out publicly about it, but that is the sandbox we play in.”
The difference between the money of the two candidates is also the story: one is asked who finances him, the other who he pays.
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/cori-bush-campaigned-against-big-money-her-pacs-paid-her-family-25500-and-an-18000-pass-through-transfer-doesnt-add-up/63-0c7e1fb9-aa23-4870-aea9-4f9fc89ac825
