Biden DOJ, FBI weighed campaign-finance probe of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema after party switch

WASHINGTON — Officials in President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice and the FBI considered opening a criminal campaign-finance investigation into then-Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) for possible Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) violations months after she left the Democratic Party, according to emails reviewed by The Post. The communications reveal that a member of the DOJ’s Criminal Division, a prosecutor in then-DC US Attorney Matthew Graves’ office and FBI agents in the bureau’s Washington Field Office all discussed investigating Sinema in February 2024, about 14 months after she announced her change in party affiliation. The Post reported on Sinema’s six-figure campaign spending on a security detail, luxury hotels, cars and concert tickets, which spurred questions about potential FECA violations tied to personal expenses.

The emails show that the discussions included Elizabeth Aloi, then an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Graves’ office, and Walter Giardina, an FBI agent in the Washington Field Office. Giardina indicated an interest in taking up the matter, writing on Feb. 2, 2024, that he wanted to pursue the Sinema referral if it was being assigned. The conversations also reveal that the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ’s Criminal Division had previously considered an investigation but found there was not enough basis to open one at that time. [Image inserted after paragraph 2]

“It's surprising and disappointing that the Sinema matter was broached given her party switch, which some allies argued was a political move,” Sinema’s chief of staff, Daniel Winkler, told The Post. Winkler described the probe discussions as potentially motivated by partisan aims, including pressure to punish Sinema for opposing removing the 60-vote filibuster. He did not indicate the scope of any potential charges but raised concerns about partisan influence on prosecutions.

By Feb. 9, 2024, Aloi and Giardina had concluded that there was not enough to proceed with a formal investigation. In a series of messages, Giardina told a supervisor that they would “pass on opening” the case after reviewing open-source material, FEC filings and FBI holdings without finding a prosecutable basis. Both Aloi and Giardina have since left their federal positions; Aloi was demoted earlier in February and later departed the U.S. Attorney’s Office, while Giardina was removed from Washington-area duties in 2024 and later fired in August by then-White House-aligned leadership tied to broader investigations. Blaire Toleman, who oversaw the matter on the supervisory side, was not retained and left federal service in November.

Sinema ultimately chose not to seek re-election as an independent, and the seat she left was won by Democrat Ruben Gallego. The Arizona senator’s 2023 FEC filings show substantial personal spending tied to security costs and non-campaign expenses: about $796,565 on hotels, a vehicle and concert tickets, plus $265,521 on security expenses. The filings highlighted that these costs significantly outpaced her fundraising in that cycle.

Analysts familiar with FECA enforcement noted that charging a sitting member of Congress under FECA is uncommon and typically reserved for clear, egregious cases. Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, said it would be “very rare” to pursue criminal charges against a sitting member under FECA unless there were a significant, obvious violation, likening it to the kind of case associated with George Santos but acknowledging the Santos case involved other charges beyond FECA. Rahmani also cautioned that the line between law and politics can blur in high-profile cases, especially when a lawmaker’s party affiliation or committee alignment is at stake.

Grassley had requested and obtained the DOJ/FBI correspondence via legally protected whistleblower disclosures, a reminder of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing oversight role in matters touching federal investigations. The committee’s chair, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), has repeatedly pressed for transparency about the actions of the Justice Department and FBI in politically sensitive cases.

The Sinema matter sits at the intersection of campaign-finance law, political identity shifts, and a broader era in which investigative tooling and prosecutorial discretion have been scrutinized for political optics. While the emails show multiple federal officials weighing a potential case, no formal charges were filed, and Sinema’s political trajectory continued as she left the Senate in 2025 after a tenure marked by a nuanced stance on bipartisan cooperation and a strategic party affiliation shift. The broader legal and political implications of the episode remain a point of reference for discussions about how campaign-finance rules are enforced in contexts shaped by party dynamics.

[Image inserted after paragraph 2: ]

As the matter recedes from the daily political spotlight, the episode underscores the persistent tension between campaign-finance compliance and the strategic calculations of elected officials who change party affiliation or stance on procedural rules. While Sinema’s decisions drew attention for their potential political ramifications, the records released to Grassley’s committee show that federal investigators ultimately determined not to pursue charges, a decision that remains part of a larger discourse about accountability and enforcement standards in a polarized environment.

[Image inserted near the end: