But three Pennsylvania legal experts say Harvie would be unlikely to have most of the documents the campaign is seeking, including internal FBI interview reports and grand jury transcripts. Harvie says he testified as a witness, not as a target of the investigation, and does not have files to release. No indictments or charges have been filed in the probe.

The contest is among Pennsylvania’s closely watched congressional races, with the outcome potentially affecting control of the U.S. House. Fitzpatrick, a five-term incumbent, has made the investigation a recurring focus of campaign ads and social media posts. He has also said he will debate Harvie only if Harvie releases records related to the case.

The FBI investigation, reported publicly in 2022, examined political donations and union contracts connected to the Pennsbury School District. Harvie, who previously served as a Falls Township supervisor, was among several current and former officials who testified before a grand jury. He has said he has had no contact with the FBI since his testimony.

Fitzpatrick has called Harvie a “subject” of the investigation and said his own experience as a federal agent and prosecutor informs his view of what records Harvie might have. He has specifically said Harvie could possess a subpoena and request a transcript of his testimony, while acknowledging that Harvie may not have every document he has mentioned.

Temple University law professor Lauren Ouziel, a former federal prosecutor, said internal FBI reports would ordinarily remain within government channels, particularly when an investigation has not resulted in an indictment. Harvie might be able to seek a transcript of his grand jury testimony, she said, but a judge would have to unseal it, and it is uncertain whether a court would agree.

Michael Levy, a University of Pennsylvania law professor and former federal prosecutor, said there would generally be little reason for Harvie to see investigative records unless he had been called as a witness in a trial. The case has not gone to trial. Stanley Brand, a Penn State Dickinson Law fellow who has defended witnesses in government investigations, characterized the campaign allegations as political maneuvering.

Federal grand jury proceedings are generally secret. Legal experts distinguish among a witness, a person whose conduct falls within an investigation’s scope, and a target whom prosecutors believe may be chargeable. The public may not be able to establish Harvie’s status independently because prosecutors and defense lawyers are restricted from disclosing information about grand jury proceedings. Harvie has said he was a witness; he declined to discuss whether he received immunity.

Harvie has argued that the attacks are meant to distract from policy and Fitzpatrick’s record. His campaign sent a cease-and-desist letter to Fitzpatrick’s campaign and sued Defending America PAC, a pro-Fitzpatrick super PAC, over statements connecting him to the investigation. Fitzpatrick is not named in that lawsuit.

The PAC has asked a court to dismiss the case, arguing that Harvie’s campaign lacks standing and that the statements are protected political opinion or “rhetorical hyperbole.” Harvie’s attorney, Timothy J. Ford, said the campaign is considering its options in response.

Fitzpatrick maintained that Harvie was not being forthcoming when asked about the legal experts’ assessments. With Election Day approaching, the dispute over records and the investigation has become a prominent feature of a race in which both campaigns are seeking to persuade voters in a closely contested district.