OKLAHOMA CITY – State Rep. Ajay Pittman is facing new, intense scrutiny over the use of her campaign funds after the Oklahoma Ethics Commission filed a lawsuit in district court last week.
Pittman, an Oklahoma City Democrat, reached a $35,000 settlement with the Ethics Commission in 2024 after the agency investigated her 2022 and 2020 campaigns. Pittman admitted using campaign funds for personal expenses and reporting contributions inaccurately.
The Ethics Commission required her to reimburse her campaigns $17,858.22 from personal funds and pay a $17,141.78 civil penalty to the state’s general revenue fund from personal funds. Pittman had until May 31, 2025, to pay her civil penalty and make a final campaign reimbursement of $858.22. After questions arose about those payments, the commission filed suit in Oklahoma County District Court against Pittman.
One of only 20 Democrats in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, Pittman, a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, according to her House bio page, was first elected in 2018.
House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, removed Pittman from the Joint Committee on State-Tribal Relations last week because of the lawsuit.
“Yesterday, the Attorney General’s Office confirmed an investigation into serious allegations involving Rep. Pittman. While that investigation remains ongoing, the recent findings from the Ethics Commission make it inappropriate for her to continue serving in a role overseeing State-Tribal relations,” Hilbert said. “Therefore, I have removed Rep. Pittman from the State-Tribal Relations Committee, effective immediately.”
House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson, D-Oklahoma City, said the charges against Pittman are concerning.
“The allegations about Rep. Ajay Pittman are serious and should be taken seriously. Regardless of party or elected position, not one of us is above the law,” Munson said. “As this investigation continues, I encourage Rep. Pittman to cooperate with law enforcement. The House Democratic Caucus remains committed to accountability and transparency for all elected officials and we will continue to focus on serving our constituents and solving problems for everyday Oklahomans.”
The Oklahoma Ethics Commission accuses Pittman of using campaign contributions to finance personal expenditures, and then submitting faked documents and a potentially fraudulent check to resolve violations of ethics rules.
The agency’s lawsuit against state Rep. Ayshia Ajay K.M. Pittman was filed on Oct. 16, the same day investigators from the state Attorney General’s Office executed a search warrant at Pittman’s fifth-floor office in the State Capitol.
The lawsuit petition spans 10 pages, with 25 pages of exhibits attached. Pittman, 32, is in her fourth two-year term in the Legislature. She represents House District 99, a district that her mother, Anastasia Pittman, represented for eight years, 2007-14, before she was elected to a four-year term in the state Senate.
In May 2024 Ajay Pittman signed a settlement agreement in which she agreed to pay the Ethics Commission “the cumulative total of $35,000” as “full compensation” for all of the Commission’s claims against her, including but not limited to:
• personal use of campaign funds, “including purchases not resulting from or connected to campaign expenses” and/or her “duties as an officeholder;”
• improper withdrawal of campaign funds via checking and ATM withdrawals, “and personal credit card payments,” totaling $17,858;
• inaccurate reporting of $30,000 in contributions in 2020, and $20,000 in contributions in 2022; and
• failure to maintain 2020 and 2022 campaign records.
Three counts are alleged in the lawsuit.
Count 1 alleges fraud in the inducement.
After receiving a “Notice of Allegations” from the Ethics Commission, Pittman wrote a letter to the agency on May 6, 2024, in which she blamed “the negligence of my former Certified Public Accountant in the mishandling of my campaign ethics reports.”
She also claimed that “throughout the investigation” she and her team “fully cooperated” with the commission’s general counsel. “However, the instructions provided were vague, and there was a lack of correspondence and guidance from August 2023 to March 2024 detailing the specific receipts required…” The commission alleges that Pittman provided two emailed letters that “induced” the agency to accept a settlement offer she submitted on May 7, 2024.
In the first letter, Pittman asked the commission for leniency and extra time to search for documentation because she had to “vacate previous office space, which caused our campaign team to be displaced.”
The second letter was allegedly from the manager of the building where Pittman “claimed her campaign committee records were previously stored, and that due to water damage the building had to be vacated.”
Relying on Pittman’s “representations and believing them to be true,” the commission agreed to her proposed settlement offer.
But on Aug. 12, 2025, “while investigating other matters in this case,” the Ethics Commission learned that the letter supposedly prepared by a building manager “instead was prepared” by Anastasia Pittman on May 6, 2024, “two minutes before it was submitted” by Ajay Pittman to “induce” the Ethics Commission to accept her settlement offer.
That incident cost the Ethics Commission “actual damages in an amount in excess of $10,000, administrative costs, and attorney’s fees incurred to bring this action,” according to the lawsuit petition.
Count 2 alleges fraudulent misrepresentation.
Among other things, it claims that on May 29, 2024, Representative Pittman agreed to reimburse the “Ajayfor-House99 2022” campaign fund $12,000 to be paid from her own personal funds by no later than May 31, 2025.
As partial payment, Pittman submitted a cashier’s check for $2,500 dated Jan. 27, 2025, that indicated it was drawn on Sovereign Bank. On June 12, 2025, Margaret Kerr, general counsel to the Ethics Commission, was notified by the bank that they had no record of that check being issued by their financial institution.
Count 3 alleges breach of contract, in that Pittman “has failed to make” the $12,000 payment agreed to on May 31, 2025.
“As of the date of this Petition,” Representative Pittman “has failed to provide proof that any payments made were sourced by her own personal funds, as is required by the Agreement.”
The district court was asked by the Ethics Commission to:
• enter a judgment rescinding the May 29, 2024, settlement agreement; • award actual and punitive damages incurred by the agency, plus its costs and “reasonable attorney fees.”
In the alternative, the commission appealed to the court to declare that Pittman breached the settlement agreement; order her to pay $7,000 “from her personal funds as is due under the Agreement;” compel her to “provide evidence of the source of all payments made under the settlement agreement and proof that the payments came from her personal funds; and award punitive damages, attorney fees and costs to the E thics Commission.