By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to a new Federal Election Commission disclosure, a man accused of having an affair with former Senator Kyrsten Sinema received nearly $9,000 in October from Sinema’s old campaign committee. Matthew J. Ammel, who worked as a security guard for Sinema, received two payments totaling this amount. These payments are part of over $128,000 paid to Ammel between July 2024 and October 2025. This occurred after Sinema terminated her Sinema for Arizona committee, and the committee spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on unrelated expenses and refunded donors, while also reporting a cash discrepancy.
Read the original article here
Kyrsten Sinema Terminated Her Campaign Committee — But Not Before It Made More Curious Payments, and it’s a situation that has a lot of people talking, mostly with a blend of frustration and outrage. It seems the former Senator from Arizona, after leaving office, shut down her campaign committee. But before doing so, it made some payments that have raised eyebrows, particularly given the context of her tenure and previous spending habits.
The most notable of these payments involves Matthew J. Ammel, who is reported to have worked as a security guard for Sinema. Ammel received two payments in October totaling nearly $9,000, and this has sparked some serious questions. One payment was labeled as “payroll,” and the other was a larger sum, leading many to wonder about the nature of these payments and whether they were appropriate use of campaign funds. The timing, coming after Sinema left office, only intensifies these concerns.
These recent payments aren’t isolated incidents. They follow a pattern of spending that’s been called into question. The previous outlays from her campaign, including expenses on travel, luxury goods, and services, have already been scrutinized. The details of these expenses included things like hotel stays in Saudi Arabia, concert and event tickets, and even gifts from Taylor Swift’s official store. The consistent theme here is the use of campaign funds in ways that aren’t typically associated with the essential activities of a campaign, and this has fueled the perception of a broader issue at play.
The core issue here is the accountability and transparency of how political funds are handled. Many people feel there’s a serious lack of oversight, with punishments for misusing funds being either non-existent or inadequate. The sentiment, expressed by many, is that the system seems to be lenient towards those in power, while the public is left feeling as though the rules don’t apply equally. The conversation often drifts towards broader discussions about corruption, the influence of money in politics, and the feeling that some politicians are exploiting their positions for personal gain.
The focus on the payments to the security guard is particularly interesting because it touches on personal relationships and possible conflicts of interest. The fact that the payments came after Sinema left office adds an extra layer of complexity, raising questions about whether these expenses were truly campaign-related or served some other purpose. The connection between Sinema and the security guard, combined with the timing and nature of the payments, adds fuel to the fire.
The outrage isn’t just about the dollar amounts, it’s also about the perceived betrayal of trust. There’s a widespread feeling that Sinema, once a progressive, shifted her political stance after gaining influence and campaign donations, potentially prioritizing personal gain over her constituents’ interests. This perceived transformation, coupled with the questionable spending, has left many people feeling disillusioned and betrayed.
It’s also worth noting the contrast with how others in politics are viewed. While the payments associated with Sinema are causing an uproar, there’s also the constant comparison to situations involving other political figures. This comparison tends to highlight perceived double standards, and people’s frustration with the legal system. It’s often said that the big fish get away while the little fish are punished, and this fuels the sentiment that the rules are for everyone else, not the powerful.
Ultimately, the story of Kyrsten Sinema’s campaign committee payments is a reminder of the need for greater transparency and accountability in political finance. The public’s reaction reveals how deeply frustrated people are with the perception of corruption and the abuse of power. The closing down of the campaign committee doesn’t resolve these questions, but instead, it draws further attention to the decisions made and the need for public scrutiny.