What looked like a routine procedural motion on HB 141 which is at the center of the Checkgate controversy, turned into a revealing and embarrassing spectacle on the House floor.
Rep. Mike Yin, R-Jackson, moved to “lay back” the bill — essentially to pause it. What followed was less a debate than a stress test of the House’s credibility. After watching the exchange and reviewing the votes, one conclusion is unavoidable:
The Checkgate investigative committee should be disbanded.
Here’s what we actually know.
Nine campaign checks were handed to legislators by political activist and fundraiser Rebecca Bextel, some on the House floor itself.
Rep. John Bear, who accepted one of those checks, is the prime sponsor of a bill Ms. Bextel wants passed. He has not been publicly forthcoming about when or where he received his check.
Every legislator who received a check voted to introduce that bill.
When Yin tried to stop the bill’s introduction, alleging checks were distributed on the floor, Bear leapt up to object, demanding proof and calling the claim offensive.
Speaker Chip Neiman, who himself accepted a check in the Speaker’s office, one of the most powerful rooms in Wyoming government, pressed Yin for evidence, even though he had taken a check in his office.
Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams went further, suggesting Yin should be punished and introducing the word “bribery” into the debate for the first time.
Meanwhile, Rep. Karlee Provenza had already photographed the check distribution.
In other words, the scandal could not be swept under the carpet. It unfolded in plain view.
I wrote last week that the coverup is worse than the crime.
And yet the House has now spent about eight hours debating, deflecting, moralizing, and professing honor over events everyone witnessed.
Yin’s motion last week exposed the absurdity of continuing both the bill and the investigation simultaneously.
His argument was simple: if the bill sits at the center of a controversy about checks handed out before any campaigns existed, voting on it before the investigation concludes looks improper.
That triggered a parade to the microphones.
Some members argued for caution and public trust. Others insisted on the presumption of innocence.
Several framed the controversy as a smear against a private citizen. One warned the House not to set a “low bar” for campaign finance scrutiny.
Another declared there was no evidence of wrongdoing. Another blamed an “outsider” for the mess.
Debate deteriorated into interruptions, points of order, shouted objections, and members talking over one another — until the Speaker finally pleaded with the body to act “like grown-ups.”
Good luck with that.
Then the House voted overwhelmingly to proceed with the very bill at the center of the controversy.
That vote told the public everything it needs to know.
Let’s be clear: there is no concrete proof of criminal bribery. Without an explicit quid pro quo — “I give you this, you give me that” — prosecutors have no case. No one is going to confess to one, and no committee will discover one.
But legality is not the same as propriety.
Accepting campaign checks from activists on the House floor before campaigns even exist …trying to cover up the checks assuming there was no evidence . . . accepting checks in the Speaker’s office … refusing to disclose where checks were received … attacking colleagues who raised concerns … attempting to shut down debate — none of that is illegal.
It is simply dishonorable.
And voters understand the difference.
The investigative committee now faces an impossible task. It will almost certainly conclude there was no criminal conduct.
Members implicated in the controversy will fluff their feathers and parade around like peacocks. You can hear the declarations of vindication, now.
The House will claim the matter is settled.
But the public already watched it happen.
No committee report can un-ring that bell.
No matter how honorable the investigative committee members are, continuing the investigation serves only one purpose: providing a veneer of official absolution.
It is political theater disguised as accountability.
Disband the committee. Stop wasting time. Stop pretending the outcome is uncertain.
What happened stinks. It may not be illegal, but it damaged the institution — and pretending otherwise only deepens the damage.
The House has already demonstrated, by its vote on Yin’s motion, that the appearance of impropriety is not a priority. Fine. Own that decision and move on.
Limp forward with the people’s business instead of staging a taxpayer-funded morality play.
One final observation: while the House has been mired in this spectacle, the Senate has quietly continued its work for the people — professionally, calmly, and without drama.
In a session short on dignity, that contrast deserves notice.
Tom Lubnau served in the Wyoming Legislature from 2004 to 2015 and is a former Speaker of the House. He can be reached at: YourInputAppreciated@gmail.com
