The House Ethics Committee delivered some unwelcome news to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez late last week, concluding that the New York Democrat should’ve paid more for the clothes she wore to the 2021 Met Gala. Because the congresswoman is a high-profile figure and because the story included some photogenic imagery, the ethics panel’s findings generated a fair number of headlines, even if the recommended penalty was rather modest by Capitol Hill standards (roughly $3,000).

But at around the same time, the House Ethics Committee also announced some findings about a different incumbent lawmaker that seemed even more interesting. The New York Times reported:

The House Ethics Committee on Friday rebuked a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania and urged him and his wife to sell their holdings in a steel company in his district after a four-year investigation into a stock trade found that he had violated the House’s official code of conduct.

Readers might not remember this one, but we talked four years ago about the ethics controversy surrounding Republican Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, and the details are worth revisiting.

At first blush, the story appeared relatively benign. Cleveland-Cliffs acquired a steel plant that employs 1,400 people in Kelly’s district but said that without trade protections from the Trump administration the facility would close. The congressman and the company lobbied the White House to keep the plant alive.

None of this raised an eyebrow. Indeed, members of Congress routinely make efforts to assist major employers in their districts.

What’s more, the lobbying paid off: In April 2020, the Commerce Department alerted the company to an investigation that would benefit the business, and Cleveland-Cliffs executives soon after canceled planned layoffs. Not surprisingly, Kelly welcomed the good news.

There was, however, a problem: After Kelly learned about the developments — but before the news had reached the public — his wife bought tens of thousands of dollars in Cleveland-Cliffs stock at $4.70 per share, later selling it a 285% profit.

A spokesperson for the congressman claimed that Kelly’s wife made “a small investment to show her support for the workers and management of this 100-year-old bedrock of their hometown,” but if that were the whole story, she likely would’ve disclosed the investment in order to demonstrate solidarity.

She didn’t.

The Republican congressman denied any wrongdoing, but the ethics committee rebuked his “lack of candor” in its investigation, urging Kelly and his wife to divest from the company.

What’s more, the report said that because Kelly’s wife didn’t cooperate with the inquiry, it was “ultimately unable to confirm whether Mrs. Kelly received nonpublic information from her husband or what her intent was in purchasing the Cleveland-Cliffs stock.”

That said, the appearance of impropriety and self-dealing seemed rather obvious.

“Representative Kelly’s conduct with respect to Cleveland-Cliffs and his wife’s stock purchase raised significant concerns for the committee, even if it did not rise to the level of insider trading or clearly violate conflict of interest rules,” the report said. It added that Kelly gave answers to investigators that were “inconsistent both during his testimony and with his prior written responses to committee requests for information.”

In case this weren’t quite enough, the Times’ report noted that the House Ethics Committee was also “alarmed by the fact that Mrs. Kelly had made additional purchases of the company’s stock in 2024 when the congressman was again working on an issue of importance to the company.”

“Mrs. Kelly’s subsequent purchase of Cleveland-Cliffs stock despite the ongoing investigation, and Representative Kelly’s failure to timely disclose that purchase and answer questions relating to it, are yet more examples of his failure to recognize the gravity of the allegations in this case and indicate a lack of respect for the committee’s role and processes,” the report added. It said he “has not demonstrated sufficient appreciation for the harm to the institution caused by the appearance of impropriety.”

In theory, this matter could be referred to the Justice Department for additional scrutiny, but in practice, that seems unlikely to happen.

For his part, the congressman said in a statement that he and his family “look forward to getting this distraction behind us.”

This post updates our related earlier coverage.