House Speaker Mike Johnson is under mounting scrutiny after newly filed complaints accused him of using campaign contributions to cover his personal rent in Washington, D.C.—a move government watchdogs say is a blatant violation of federal law.

The Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group, filed complaints this week with both the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Office of Congressional Conduct. The group alleges that Johnson and his campaign committee made five separate disbursements of $2,500 each—totaling $12,500—to Greene Properties Inc., a company owned by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California. The payments were labeled simply as “rent,” with no indication that they were for campaign-related office space or any other legally permitted expense.

“The use of campaign funds for personal expenses is strictly prohibited under campaign finance law,” the group stated in its filing. “When elected officials use campaign contributions for such personal expenses, they enrich themselves and undermine the public’s trust in their elected officials and the campaign finance system.”

According to the complaint, Johnson currently resides at Issa’s Washington home, which the California Republican purchased earlier this year for $1.5 million from former Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee. Green, whose net worth has skyrocketed to over $45 million since entering Congress in 2018, is one of Capitol Hill’s most successful stock traders.

Issa told Semafor in April that Johnson was “a friend and needed a place,” offering him a residence in the upscale property. But the watchdog group says the arrangement—coupled with the rent payments coming from campaign accounts—crosses a bright legal line.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), using campaign funds for personal benefit is illegal. The complaints argue that by making rent payments to a property in which he lives, Johnson effectively converted campaign donations into personal income.

Johnson’s living arrangements have drawn attention before. His previous residence in D.C. was a $3.7 million townhouse that doubled as a “ministry center” operated by Tennessee pastor Steve Berger, a political ally of Gov. Bill Lee. Berger resigned from his church board in 2021 amid allegations that he failed to act on child abuse claims—a controversy that cast a shadow over his network of political and religious connections.

In this latest case, the watchdog group points out that Johnson’s rent payments to Issa’s company were not reported as payments for campaign headquarters or temporary office space, which could have been legally permissible. Instead, the FEC records list the expenses without any qualifying details, raising what the group calls “serious and urgent” concerns about compliance with federal law.

The allegations come at a politically sensitive time for Johnson, who is navigating a turbulent congressional session marked by internal Republican divisions, high-stakes budget negotiations, and an election cycle already under intense public scrutiny.

Ethics experts note that if the FEC finds sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, Johnson could face civil penalties, mandatory reimbursements, and potentially a referral to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. In the court of public opinion, the accusations risk eroding his credibility as the leader of the House GOP—particularly given his past calls for fiscal accountability and political integrity.

House rules require all members, including the Speaker, to ensure campaign funds are used solely for legitimate political purposes. Violations can trigger both financial penalties and political fallout, especially when they involve personal enrichment at donor expense.

As of now, Johnson has not publicly responded to the allegations. His office did not return requests for comment on the payments or his current housing arrangement. Rep. Issa has also remained silent since the complaints were filed, though his past remarks confirm Johnson’s stay in his property.

The FEC will now review the filings, a process that could take months. Meanwhile, the Office of Congressional Conduct may launch its own probe into whether Johnson breached House ethics rules.

Whether the matter results in formal sanctions or is dismissed as a misunderstanding, the political damage may already be done. The accusations of a “clear-cut” violation have injected new controversy into Johnson’s speakership—and given his critics fresh ammunition to question his fitness for one of the nation’s most powerful political roles.