Maryland lawmakers want governors to face stronger ethics laws
BALTIMORE — Lawmakers are seeking to require that Maryland governors place their personal financial holdings into a blind trust months after conflicts of interest were raised during Maryland's U.S. Senate race between former Gov. Larry Hogan and now-Sen. Angela Alsobrooks.
Senate Bill 723 and House Bill 932 would require the governor to either place their financial interests into a certified blind trust approved by the State Ethics Commission or divest from any interest the SEC determines may pose a conflict of interest with the governor's public duties.
A blind trust is an arrangement often used by politicians to give control of their private financial interests to an independent manager to avoid conflicts of interest.
'While we do have financial disclosure requirements here in Maryland that we all comply with, I would suggest that when it comes to the highest office in the state — the governor, who has unique power — that we need an even stronger framework so as to mitigate against conflicts of interest, reinforce accountability and transparency and protect the ethical integrity of that uniquely powerful office,' said Sen. Brian Feldman, a Montgomery County Democrat sponsoring the Senate bill.
While Feldman did not name any particular governor at Wednesday's bill hearing in the Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee, he referenced an October 2024 article from Time magazine that raised ethical concerns about former Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican.
The report, which was published before the only televised debate between Hogan and now-U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, claimed the former governor had approved millions of dollars in affordable housing awards for six developers who were clients of his real estate brokerage firm.
Maryland Democrats, including Gov. Wes Moore, called for stronger state ethics laws the day after the story came out. At the time, Moore said there were 'a lot of answers that the old governor needs to provide' and said the state should look into the contracts Hogan approved while he was in office.
Hogan, meanwhile, called the story 'completely false' and 'some old false conspiracy theory.'
Moore finalized the creation of a blind trust several months after taking office. As of April 2023, his blind trust included more than $2.5 million in investments. Nearly half of Moore's holdings posed potential conflicts of interest, including more than $1.2 million in shares of a cannabis company that does business in Maryland.
Under the bill's provisions, the trustee of a governor's blind trust would generally be prohibited from informing the governor about the management or income of the trust while the governor is in office. However, they can provide enough needed information to file tax returns. The State Ethics Commission would post a governor's approved certified blind trust and related documents on its website.
Additionally, the measure would require any business entity seeking a state grant, award or contract to report any financial interest held by the governor or restricted individuals — a governor's spouse, parents, grandparents, siblings, children, grandchildren and in-laws — to the state's ethics commission. A report from a business entity would also be posted to the commission's website.
Joanne Antoine, executive director of Common Cause Maryland, referenced similar concerns as Feldman, saying that over the last few years, the public has been questioning the actions of former governors.
'Conflicts of interest are cancerous to our democracy,' she said. 'When our elected officials put their interests first, what they're sending is a message to the public that the state doesn't think their needs are a priority.'
---------
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stymied French politicians turn to the sins of the past
On Thursday, two years after France's controversial retirement age increase, the National Assembly voted to withdraw the reform. While the news was politically explosive because the far-right National Rally helped the left-wing opposition gain a majority in the vote, the decision hasn't yielded any actual legal results. The situation reflects the country's ongoing failure to address structural reforms since the parliamentary elections last summer, which left the government won without an absolute majority. But in the area of remembrance policy there has been significant movement. In the same week as the toothless retirement resolution, parliamentarians adopted three texts that reclassify historical events or offer the prospect of reparations. On June 2, the French parliament voted unanimously to posthumously appoint Alfred Dreyfus to the rank of brigadier general. The Jewish officer was wrongly accused of high treason in 1894, based on falsified evidence that he revealed military secrets to the German embassy in Paris. Dreyfus subsequently spent four years in the notorious Devil's Island penal colony off the coast of French Guiana. The Franco-German dimension of the case had explosive foreign policy implications even then. The suspect's Jewish origins and his family background in the Alsace-Lorraine region, which came under German rule after the Franco-Prussian War, and strained relations with Germany, made him an ideal target for the nationalist mistrust many French people harbored at the time. Writer Émile Zola famously sided with Dreyfus in his essay "J'accuse…!", which played a critical role in the officer's exoneration and military rehabilitation in 1906. Nevertheless, after serving in the First World War as a lieutenant colonel, Dreyfus was only reinstated at a lower rank. This posthumous promotion for Dreyfus still has to pass the Senate. Alsatian MP Charles Sitzenstuhl, a member of French President Emmanuel Macron's center-right Renaissance Party, who introduced the initiative, offered a link to the present as a warning: "The anti-Semitism that plagued Alfred Dreyfus is not a thing of the distant past," he said. Just one day after the Dreyfus vote, the National Assembly also passed a law to recognize and compensate former returnees from French Indochina after the colonial rule of territories including Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia ended in 1954. Around 44,000 people were repatriated to France, among them colonial officials, soldiers and their families, the descendants of French colonizers and local women, as well as local collaborators. Between 4,000 to 6,000 returnees ended up in temporary camps, which were often outfitted with wooden barracks that lacked heating and plumbing. Returnees were also subject to degrading policies that included bans on going out and owning cars or other luxury goods. The new law introduced by the left-wing Socialist Party now provides for financial support based on someone's length of stay in the camps. It is estimated that up to 1,600 people could claim compensation. On June 5, the Assembly adopted a resolution addressing a "double debt" to Haiti that goes back to 1825. That was the year that France forced Haiti, which had declared independence in 1804, to pay compensation of 150 million gold francs. This was intended as a recognition of independence that would also compensate for the loss of French colonial possessions, including income from slaves. Haiti was forced to settle this "independence debt" over decades — a considerable economic burden that contributed to long-term poverty and instability on the island. The resolution, initiated by the Communist Party, calls for recognition, repayment and reparations for Haiti. But the text does not include concrete political steps or financial agreements. Nevertheless, the far-right National Rally voted against it. Remembrance politics have some tradition in France. In 2001, the "Taubira" law, named after the parliamentarian who introduced it, recognized the slave trade and practice of slavery as crimes against humanity. The topic has been a part of school curricula in France ever since. In October 2006, the National Assembly passed a bill to criminalize the denial of the Armenian genocide of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire with a year in prison or fine of €45,000 ($51,300). The bill never came into force after it failed to pass in the Senate, and was followed by a similarly doomed initiative introduced under President Nicolas Sarkozy. That draft law passed both chambers of parliament, but was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council in February 2012, which said that it amounted to unlawful interference with freedom of expression and research. Another example is the treatment of the so-called "Senegalese riflemen," the colonial soldiers from Africa who fought for France in the two world wars. For decades, many received significantly lower pensions than their French comrades, especially if they lived outside of France after decolonization. It was not until 2009 that President Sarkozy decreed an equalization of pension benefits, a step that held great symbolic significance. The latest spike in such initiatives has been met with mixed interpretations by political scientists. Some experts see the willingness to take historical responsibility as a form of social maturity. But others point out that in a politically paralyzed legislature, symbolic initiatives are easier to pass than structural reforms in areas such as pensions, education or the budget. This article was originally written in German.
New York Post
29 minutes ago
- New York Post
TikTok influencer slammed for viral video about ‘unchic' fashion
Tara Langdale talked to Fox News Digital about how she received hurtful messages from critics after a not-so-serious fashion post describing what she views as 'unchic' went viral, spawning a cascade of events that made her apolitical post a victim of attacks. The self-described stay-at-home working mom amassed some 250,000 views and found herself on the receiving end of some hate after an April 7 TikTok of her seated, drinking from a wine glass with nicely done hair, gold jewelry and manicured nails as she skimmed through a list of 'unchic' fashion sins. Advertisement Tattoos, Lululemon, baggy denim, camouflage and visible panty lines were just a few that made part one of Langdale's controversial 'unchic' list, which drew backlash from seething critics who called her out with a political twist. 'Voting for Trump is unchic,' one said. 'To her, privilege = chic. Hope this helps!' said another. A third said, 'just say you're a republican and go lmao,' while a slew of commenters took exception to her tattoo stance and ranted about classism. Advertisement The video even caught The Guardian's attention, prompting an article that coined 'chic' as 'a shorthand for a type of conservative-coded aesthetic' and spoke of the 'rigid and airbrushed' looks of Trump allies, sch as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. 4 Tara Langdale received backlash for her 'unchic' fashion TikTok. @tara_langdale / TikTok Though Langdale diddles cribe herself as conservative when speaking to Fox News Digital, she insists not everything is about politics. 'When I get dressed in the morning, I'm not thinking about my political party and how I should dress to showcase that,' Langdale said. Advertisement 'I think conservativism is more of culture, religion – all of those things go into your conservativist mindset. Now, if you're talking about conservative style of dress… that's also going to be more like religion and culture,' she went on. 'Of course, if I'm going to church on Sunday, I'm dressing very conservative. I'm going to keep it classy, but if you see me in the street in my regular day-to-day, I am not at all conservative. I would never consider my style to be conservative. But am I conservative? Absolutely, so I can differentiate the two. I know that the internet has a hard time doing that.' 4 Lululemon made Langdale's controversial 'unchic' list — along with baggy denim, camouflage and visible panty lines. REUTERS 4 Tattoos were also on Langdale's list. xartproduction – Langdale addressed the politicized dogma, saying she doesn't understand why TikTok users jumped to conclusions about 'conservative' or 'Republican makeup' as they did. Advertisement 'Because I'm blonde, because I have more of a natural look about me, I'm not fully glammed all the time… I'm really not sure how that makes me appear conservative, but, again, I just think when people don't agree with what you say, they have to find a way to discredit you, and that's just an easy tactic,' she continued. At the same time, Langdale pushed back against the idea of her video implying that people too poor to afford expensive items are automatically 'unchic,' and pointed to brand-name items like athletic apparel brand Lululemon, Apple Watches and Golden Goose sneakers – all of which can be pricey – as evidence pointing to the contrary. 'Just keep in mind that money talks and wealth whispers, and I don't know any wealthy people that are wearing Gucci across their chest,' she said in her original post. Langdale explained that the TikTok trend of users showcasing 'things I find incredibly chic' grabbed her attention as they began circulating on the app. She found them 'pretentious and off-putting,' so she felt compelled to take her own stab at the video. 4 'When I get dressed in the morning, I'm not thinking about my political party and how I should dress to showcase that,' Langdale said about the political criticism she received. @tara_langdale / TikTok 'Of course, my video came off as pretentious and off-putting as well, but it felt like a certain level of cringe for me, and I don't like to personally attack anybody on social media, so I wouldn't go after a specific creator. I just kind of wanted to hop on the trend… so that was my initial, 'Why I created the video.'' Advertisement Langdale shared that her direct messages on the platform have been 'insane' with threats and comments about her family since the video went viral. 'It does make you step back and take a pause,' she shared. 'Like, is this really worth it for how crazy people react? And I would never want to put my family in danger, but I think a lot of it is just the keyboard pirates that are just back there behind their computer typing whatever they can to try to get more likes in the comments,' Langdale added.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House witness flips script on Dem who ambushed him during hearing with unearthed tweet: 'Iceberg is ahead'
FIRST ON FOX: A House committee witness who was called out by Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of California during a hearing this week is pushing back after the congressman unearthed a past social media post on Social Security in an attempt to discredit his testimony. During a House oversight DOGE subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Garcia grilled Power the Future CEO Dan Turner while holding up a posterboard of a past tweet calling Social Security a "government-sponsored Ponzi scheme." "Madoff went to jail for it. Congress runs on it," the post said. "I should be able to keep 100% of my money and not watch government waste it with a paltry percentage return." Garcia then suggested that post was evidence that Turner lacks the credibility to be testifying about the billions of federal tax dollars directed to left-wing NGOs. Social Security Commissioner Breaks Down Plan To Save Agency From Insolvency "A Ponzi scheme and so I think it's interesting, of course, as one of our Republican witnesses is calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and that's the person that we should be taking advice from here today," Garcia said. Read On The Fox News App "Without Social Security, 22 million people would be pushed into poverty. That includes over 16 million seniors and nearly 1 million children. And in fact, Elon Musk has also said and agreed with you, sir, that this is a Ponzi scheme. I think it's ironic that you are one of our witnesses talking about efficiency when you want to attack the single best program that we have to support people not just out of poverty, but across this country to uplift them, to ensure they can afford a decent life." Fox News Digital spoke to Turner, who stood by his post and outlined his belief, echoed by many, that Social Security is structured like a Ponzi scheme by definition. Sen Elizabeth Warren: Social Security Is Under Attack. Gutting It Is A Broken Promise "Rep Garcia does not know the definition of Ponzi scheme," Turner said. "Social Security is the ultimate Ponzi, demanding more and more people at the bottom pay in to fund the people at the top, expect our demographics have this now reversed. The system will default. Mr. Garcia nor I will likely never see a dime. That should worry him more than my social media feed." Turner told Fox News Digital that if Garcia's staff were to spend as much time trying to save Social Security as it did "combing through my social media" then "perhaps the Ponzi scheme can survive long enough for me to get a small percentage of what the government confiscated during my lifetime." Turner explained that his father had received a "paltry percentage" of what he paid into the program and the the government "kept the rest" when his father died. "That's not just a Ponzi scheme, it's government greed and politicians running a money-laundering operation to get reelected. No one should be compelled to pay into a failed system, yet in a free America, you don't have that choice." In addition to Turner and Elon Musk suggesting that Social Security is by definition set up like a Ponzi scheme, Fox News Digital previously spoke to James Agresti, president of the nonprofit research institute Just Facts, who said the characterization has "validity." 'Failure's Not An Option': Trump Budget Bill Will Be 'Big' Help For Seniors, Top House Tax-writer Says "A Ponzi scheme operates by taking money from new investors to pay current investors," Agresti said. "That's the definition given by the SEC, and contrary to popular belief, that's exactly how Social Security operates." Agresti explained to Fox News Digital that Social Security, a program mired for decades with concerns about waste, fraud, and improper payments, "doesn't take our money and save it for us, as many people believe, and then give it to us when we're older" like many Americans might believe. "What it does is, it transfers money when we are young and working and paying into Social Security taxes," Agresti said. "That money, the vast bulk of it, goes immediately out the door to people who are currently receiving benefits. Now, there is a trust fund, but in 90 years of operation, that trust fund currently has enough money to fund two years of program operations." The trust fund only being able to last for two years is not a result of the fund being "looted," Agresti explained, but rather it was put in place to "put surpluses in it" from money that Social Security collects in taxes that it doesn't pay out immediately and pays interest on. "The interest that's been paid on that has been higher than the rate of inflation," Agresti said. "So, the problem isn't that the trust fund has been looted. The problem is that Social Security operates like a Ponzi scheme." Democrats have vocally pushed back against efforts by Republicans and DOGE to reform Social Security or make cuts to what they say are examples of wasteful or improper spending from the department. "There's been a lot of misinformation about that as of late," Agresti told Fox News Digital. "You know, when DOGE came in and suggested that the Social Security Administration cut, I think it was about 10,000 workers, Democrats erupted that this is going to weaken Social Security. But the fact of the matter is that Social Security pays those workers who are for administrative overhead from the Social Security trust fund. So, by cutting out the money that they're paying them, you actually strengthen the program financially." Agresti told Fox News Digital that the current administrative overhead for Social Security is $6.7 billion per year, which is enough to pay more than 300,000 retirees the average old-age benefit. "Every single study shows social security going completely bankrupt in the next few years. Garcia and other democrats know the iceberg is ahead but rather than turn the ship, they are yelling at the iceberg about the senior citizens onboard," Turner said. "This Ponzi scheme is collapsing fast, and turning my tweets into posters is not going to stop it."Original article source: House witness flips script on Dem who ambushed him during hearing with unearthed tweet: 'Iceberg is ahead'
