CHEYENNE—On Thursday, a panel of House lawmakers held a high-profile hearing to investigate an incident involving a conservative activist handing lawmakers checks on the House floor. 

Numerous legislators testified before the panel. The House gaveled out early as it struggled to maintain a quorum. The public hearing ran more than four hours. 

Meanwhile, a few blocks from the Capitol, the Laramie County Sheriff’s Office had more quietly begun its own criminal investigation into the matter. 

“They’re doing their internal investigation that they’re doing right now, but they don’t have the authority to charge,” Kozak told WyoFile on Feb. 25, the day before the House’s hearing. 

“If we have probable cause, we can obtain search warrants for cell phone records, emails and stuff where they can’t do that. So that’s why I felt it was important to do a criminal investigation, because once we start digging, who knows what we’ll find?”

The sheriff has subsequently faced accusations by some lawmakers of being politically motivated. But Kozak maintains that’s not the case. 

WyoFile and the Jackson Hole News&Guide first reported that Rebecca Bextel, a conservative Jackson activist, handed out campaign donation checks to several Republican lawmakers on the House floor on Feb. 9 following adjournment. The $1,500 checks were from Don Grasso, a Jackson resident since 2020. 

The exchanges occurred two days before the House’s vote on a housing bill, House Bill 141, that Bextel has vocally supported. 

Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, said before the House voted on the bill that the measure came from a “specific person in Teton County” who wanted to revive legislation that failed last year.

“This is not an accusation. This is solely just optics for the Legislature,” Yin said on the House floor. “My understanding is that that person handed out checks on the floor of the Legislature during the session.”

Rebecca Bextel hands a check to Rock Springs Republican Rep. Darin McCann on Monday, Feb. 9, 2026, during the 68th Wyoming Legislature’s budget session in Cheyenne. (Rep. Karlee Provenza)

After the House voted to advance the bill, Rep. Rachel Rogriguez-Williams, a Cody Republican, accused Yin of making “an allegation of quid pro quo” and “a defamatory statement.” Distributing checks on the House floor “essentially would be bribery and unethical,” she said. 

The sheriff’s investigation aims to discern if lawmakers voted a certain way because of the checks they received. “That’s where maybe a text message, email, something like that, might connect the two. And so that’s kind of what we need to investigate,” Kozak said. 

But the investigation could also potentially clear the air of allegations of wrongdoing, he added. 

“Maybe we do get enough probable cause to check emails and text messages and things like that,” Kozak said. “I mean, we could say, ‘There absolutely was no link. We didn’t find anything.’” 

Kozak emphasized that his office’s investigation is separate from the House inquiry. “They still gotta answer to their own ethics and things like that, which we’re not investigating,” he said. 

Legislative response

The House and Senate launched separate investigations into the incident after details about the check exchanges became public. Both chambers banned receiving campaign contributions during a legislative session. Gov. Mark Gordon also issued an executive order barring such contributions in state buildings. 

Then the Senate killed HB 141 on Monday because of the controversy surrounding it this session. 

Kozak’s office announced Feb. 14 the launch of a criminal investigation into what’s now known as “Checkgate.” The investigation aims to determine whether checks distributed to Wyoming lawmakers on the House floor constituted bribery. 

“Community complaints and media reports” prompted the sheriff’s inquiry, the office said. 

“Our community deserves full transparency, and alleged criminal conduct involving our lawmakers deserves no less than a thorough investigation,” Kozak said in a statement.

The sheriff’s criminal inquiry evoked strong reactions in the Legislature. 

Yin, the Jackson Democrat, said during an emotional night on the House floor that he wished the sheriff hadn’t opened an investigation. 

Rebecca Bextel testifies during the first meeting of the House Special Investigative Committee on Thursday, Feb. 26, 2026, at the Wyoming Capitol in Cheyenne. (Mike Vanata/WyoFile)

“I think that created a real problem for everyone involved,” said Yin. “We could have had a swift committee move very swiftly, and I know the chairman of the committee really wanted to move swiftly. I’m not sure what he does now.”

That night, House lawmakers voted to continue the lower chamber’s investigation after the chairman of the investigatory committee, Casper Republican Rep. Art Washut, had recommended pausing the inquiry to let the law enforcement investigation play out first.

Others went farther, alleging that the criminal investigation was politically motivated. 

“I’ve never seen a sheriff bring up an investigation with a Facebook post on Saturday and he hasn’t had to speak with his own agency until Monday,” Gillette Republican Rep. John Bear said on the House floor. “So it’s clear that the sheriff has made this a political thing as well.”

Bear told a reporter he received a check from Bextel, though not on the House floor. Because he did not receive the check on the House floor, Bear was not asked to testify at last week’s hearing.

‘A possible crime’

Kozak, who is up for reelection this year, maintained that the criminal inquiry is “definitely not politically motivated,” given that people had alleged a possible crime had occurred. “That’s our job, right? To investigate crime,” he said.  

Kozak told WyoFile he had consulted other law enforcement agencies about looking into the incident. 

The sheriff contacted the Wyoming Highway Patrol. One lawmaker, Casper Republican Rep. Jayme Lien, asked why the highway patrol wasn’t investigating the incident, given that the check passing took place in the Capitol, where highway patrol troopers are posted. 

But there’s a conflict, because highway patrol receives money from the Legislature, and troopers are also responsible for providing security to lawmakers during session. 

“Given those structural relationships, it is prudent to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest when a matter directly involves the legislative branch,” Wyoming Highway Patrol Col. Tim Cameron told WyoFile in an email. 

What’s more, the check-passing incident “falls outside” the highway patrol’s “statutory mission and traditional scope of enforcement responsibility,” Cameron said. 

Kozak also contacted the Cheyenne Police Department to ask if the department wanted to assign any detectives to assist with the investigation. The department ultimately didn’t put any officers on the case. 

“While we are always willing to provide mutual aid and partnership, there did not seem to be an imminent need to add additional resources,” a spokesperson for the department told WyoFile. 

Kozak checked to see if the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation was looking into the situation, but it wasn’t. The division can only become involved in an investigation after consulting with the attorney general, if a local agency requests it, Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation Commander Ryan Cox told WyoFile in an email. As of Tuesday morning, the agency hadn’t received any such request, he said. 

Kozak also reached out to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But the sheriff said he was told the situation didn’t meet the agency’s criteria for an investigation. 

A spokesperson for the FBI’s Denver field office said the agency “cannot confirm or deny any particular contact” or investigation. The spokesperson said that, generally, “allegations of criminal conduct are reviewed by the FBI for their merit, with consideration of any applicable federal laws.”

For more legislative coverage, click here.

Maya Shimizu Harris covers public safety for WyoFile. She was previously a freelance writer and the state politics reporter for the Casper Star-Tribune.

Join the Conversation

5 Comments

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Unless we are prepared to say that bribery is protected by the first amendment then we need to be able to draw a line between legitimate campaign contributions and those intended to directly influence a public official’s vote. Regardless of what the Freedom Caucus Representatives thought about the money handed to them during the session, the timing and circumstances suggest that the person doling it out thought it would help move the legislation she wanted forward. She claims otherwise of course and perhaps that will be borne out by the evidence. But an independent investigation is warranted. Good for the Sheriff—a Republican—to start an investigation and let the public know he was doing so whether on Facebook or otherwise. Any complete investigation should certainly include a subpoena to the parties giving and receiving these checks for their communications with each other, both before this session and the previous one when the legislation in question was first introduced.

    1. Sorry William, you apparently did not read the report of the Investigative Committee Final Report dated March 4, 2026, Appendix 7, with the attached Article 3, Section 44 which says “Any person may be compelled to testify in any lawful investigation against any person who may be charged with having committed the offense of bribery … but such testimony shall not afterwards be used against him in any judicial proceeding, except for perjury in giving such testimony…

      The investigation has probably essentially given a free pass to those who have testified.

      I am not a lawyer… but it is a fairly strange language that exonerates the witnesses that are also those who may be charged from having any testimony used against them.

      Good luck on using last year’s bill and campaign donations applied to this situation. And it will be very hard to get a jury to be able to distinguish between a campaign donation and a bribe.

      Add to the mess is that there was a much stronger bribery case to be made in 2014… that nobody touched.

  2. OMG, this will be really hard when the investigation into money for votes gets into charging the Wyoming Democrat Party. Clearly, they fund candidates and have a platform they would like them to vote for. Oh wait, the WEA has PAC money and wants those getting the money to vote their issues. I’m sorry The Republican party funds candidates according to a platform. And it the Dentists would like votes for their issues and they have a PAC. OMG, I just looked at my spending. Am I going to be investigated? I have given money to candidates. I have even given monies to individuals who will vote against my issues… am I guilty of reverse bribery?

    Of course, this is political. Is it normal to start an investigation with a Facebook post? Does the Laramie County Sheriff normally start investigations with announcements on Facebook? Imagine the depositions of employees and deputy’s about department procedures and announcing criminal inquiries?

    Campaign donations are not illegal. Do people try to influence candidates with money? Check Mark Gorgon’s PAC too.

    And individuals give money all the time and they bend ears about their issues.

    There is no way that a jury will convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Bo Biteman said it on the floor. He wanted to vote for 141… but couldn’t because there was a criminal inquiry announced by the Sheriff. Did announcing an investigation on Facebook influence votes?

    100% political. And the announcement was clearly unprofessional.

    1. There are so many things about FaceBook that are unprofessional, whose to say which is more unprofessional than another. The public has come to rely heavily on FaceBook, Instagram, TikTok, and the list goes on. Instead of looking for some insidious reason why he chose to announce it on FaceBook I’ll take the high road and say that his decision was based on the most expedient way to disseminate the news.
      If the taxpayers of Laramie Cnty are OK with the use of their tax money by the Sheriff, then so be it. It’s none of my business.

      1. LOL, I am not ok with them wasting our taxpayer money on something they won’t be able to prove. Sheriff didn’t ask me though. There is nothing more here than a donation made at a poor choice in time. That has been corrected by blocking donations during session. Fixed.