Maryland governor vetoes reparations bill
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) says he has vetoed a state-approved bill to create a commission to study and recommend reparations for slavery and racial discrimination.
In his veto letter sent Friday, Moore pointed to several commissions the state has already approved, including the Maryland Lynching Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the State Commission to Coordinate the Study, Commemoration, and Impact of the History and Legacy of Slavery in Maryland.
'I will always protect and defend the full history of African Americans in our state and country,' Moore wrote in his letter. 'But in light of the many important studies that have taken place on this issue over nearly three decades, now is the time to focus on the work itself: Narrowing the racial wealth gap, expanding homeownership, uplifting entrepreneurs of color, and closing the foundational disparities that lead to inequality — from food insecurity to education.'
Moore, the state's first Black governor and the nation's only sitting Black governor, also pointed to the rise of Black politicians in recent years, including Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D), who is Maryland's first Black female senator, and noted the state has a Black attorney general, Black state House Speaker and Black treasurer.
'We have moved in partnership with leaders across the state to uplift Black families and address racial disparities in our communities,' Moore said. 'That is the context in which I've made this difficult decision. Because while I appreciate the work that went into this legislation, I strongly believe now is not the time for another study. Now is the time for continued action that delivers results for the people we serve.'
The bill, a top priority of the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland, detailed a host of potential reparations, including official statements of apology, financial compensation, assistance with making a down payment on a home, debt forgiveness and tuition payment waivers for higher education.
The bill passed last month with a 101-36 vote in the state's House.
The Legislative Black Caucus condemned Moore's veto Friday.
'At a time when the White House and Congress are actively targeting Black communities, dismantling diversity initiatives, and using harmful coded language, Governor Moore had a chance to show the country and the world that here in Maryland we boldly and courageously recognize our painful history and the urgent need to address it,' it said in the statement.
'Instead, the State's first Black governor chose to block this historic legislation that would have moved the state toward directly repairing the harm of enslavement.'
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York and Illinois have all introduced efforts to pass reparations. Evanston, Ill., was the first city to approve a reparations plan for Black residents, followed by California's ambitious recommendation for eligible recipients to receive up to $1.2 million each.
No federal legislation has passed yet, though Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) reintroduced H.R. 40, which would create a federal commission to examine the lasting impact of slavery, systemic racism and racial discrimination and explore measures — such as reparations — to address these harms. The legislation was first introduced in 1989.
Meanwhile, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) on Thursday reintroduced the federal Reparations Now resolution, which would offer reparations to descendants of enslaved Africans and people of African descent.
—Updated at 10:32 a.m. EDT
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
What a ‘revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investors
As the Senate weighs President Donald Trump's multi-trillion-dollar spending package, a lesser-known provision tucked into the House-approved bill has pushback from Wall Street. The House measure, known as Section 899, would allow the U.S. to add a new tax of up to 20% on foreigners with U.S. investments, including multinational companies operating in the U.S. Some analysts call the provision a "revenge tax" due to its wording. It would apply to foreign entities if their home country imposes "unfair foreign taxes" against U.S. companies, according to the bill. "Wall Street investors are shocked by [Section] 899 and apparently did not see it coming," James Lucier, Capital Alpha Partners managing director, wrote in a June 5 analysis. More from Personal Finance:The average 401(k) savings rate hit a record high. See if you're on trackOn-time debt payments aren't a magic fix for your credit score. Here's whyWith 'above normal' hurricane forecasts, check your home insurance policy If enacted as written, the provision could have "significant implications for the asset management industry," including cross-border income earned by hedge funds, private equity funds and other entities, Ernst & Young wrote on June 2. Passive investment income could be subject to a higher U.S. withholding tax, as high as 50% in some cases, the company noted. Some analysts worry that could impact future investment. The Investment Company Institute, which represents the asset management industry serving individual investors, warned in a May 30 statement that the provision is "written in a manner that could limit foreign investment to the U.S." But with details pending as the Senate assesses the bill, many experts are still weighing the potential impact — including who could be affected. Here's what investors need to know about Section 899. As drafted, Section 899 would allow the U.S. to hike existing levies for countries with "unfair foreign taxes" by 5% per year, capped at 20%. Several kinds of tax fall under "unfair foreign taxes," according to the provision. Those include the undertaxed profits rule, which is associated with part of the global minimum tax negotiated by the Biden administration. The term would also apply to digital services taxes and diverted profits taxes, along with new levies that could arise, according to the bill. The second part of the measure would expand the so-called base erosion and anti-abuse tax, or BEAT, which aims to prevent corporations from shifting profits abroad to avoid taxes. "Basically, all businesses that are operating in the U.S. from a foreign headquarters will face that," said Daniel Bunn, president and CEO of the Tax Foundation. "It's pretty expansive." The retaliatory measures would apply to most wealthy countries from which the U.S. receives direct foreign investment, which could threaten or harm the U.S. economy, according to Bunn's analysis. Notably, the proposed taxes don't apply to U.S. Treasuries or portfolio interest, according to the bill. Section 899 still needs Senate approval, and it's unclear how the provision could change amid alarm from Wall Street. But the measure has "strong support" from others in the business community, and it's a "strong priority" for Republican House Ways and Means Committee members, Capital Alpha Partners' Lucier wrote. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., first floated the idea in a May 2023 bill, and has been outspoken, along with other Republicans, against the global minimum tax. If enacted as drafted, Section 899 could raise an estimated $116 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That could help fund other priorities in Trump's mega-bill, and if removed, lawmakers may need to find the revenue elsewhere, Bunn said. However, House Ways and Means Republicans may ultimately want foreign countries to adjust their tax policies before the new tax is imposed. "If these countries withdraw these taxes and decide to behave, we will have achieved our goal," Smith said in a June 4 statement.
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Ethics legislation stalls in Springfield as Senate president tries ‘brazen' move that would have helped his election case
In the closing hours of the Illinois General Assembly's spring session, Senate President Don Harmon tried to pass legislation that would have wiped clean a potential multimillion-dollar fine against his political campaign committee for violating election finance laws he championed years ago. Harmon's move came against the backdrop of the former Illinois House speaker's upcoming sentencing for corruption and abuse of power and almost instantly created a bipartisan legislative controversy that resulted in the bill never getting called for a vote. The Oak Park Democrat's maneuver, characterized by critics as 'brazen' and self-serving, also raises anew questions about how seriously political leaders are trying to improve ethical standards in a state government the electorate already holds in low regard. Blowback to Harmon's action, particularly from inside the House Democratic caucus, was so severe it derailed an entire package of new election measures that would have required severe warnings about penalties for noncitizen voting, mandated curbside voting access for the disabled, broadened the ability of voters to cast ballots in centralized locations and provided more detailed public information about voting results. 'This is a terrible look,' said state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who recalled being one of several who spoke out in a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting. 'I don't recommend that anybody in our caucus take a vote like that. There was not a single person in that caucus that could defend that vote. … There was a visceral reaction to it in caucus — both to the substance of it and the lack of forewarning.' But in an interview with the Tribune, Harmon repeatedly maintained his effort was justified and disputed criticism that it was self-serving. Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker — who previously said former Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan's February conviction was a 'vital reminder that we must maintain our vigilance in cleaning up government' — also defended Harmon and said their political party takes ethics seriously. Still, Harmon's activity is reflective of a political culture in Springfield where officials talk a good game about the importance of ethics in government but routinely stop short of adopting robust laws governing their conduct. After a legislative session that ended last weekend with lawmakers never advancing significant ethics bills, Democratic House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch of Hillside maintained that such legislation 'remains a top priority' for him. He pointed to ethics proposals approved during his first year as speaker in 2021 after Madigan was ousted while federal investigators were closing in. Welch said current 'ethics laws and the laws of the state of Illinois worked' in Madigan's case — though his predecessor was charged and convicted under federal, not state, law. 'The system worked. We don't need to rush and react. We need to take our time and get things right. We don't need to react to headlines,' he said. 'We need to make sure things get properly vetted, that the House, the Senate and the governor's office can all come to agreement on these things, and we're committed to doing that.' Madigan, 83, once the state's most powerful politician, faces sentencing Friday after being convicted Feb. 12 by a jury on federal bribery conspiracy and other corruption charges that alleged he used his office to enhance his power, line his pockets and enrich a small circle of his most loyal associates. But pieces of the post-Madigan changes that Welch points to still draw criticism because they are weaker at holding lawmakers in Illinois accountable than laws in other states. In particular, a revolving-door clause only requires lawmakers to wait a maximum of six months to become a lobbyist if they leave office in the middle of their term. And, if they complete their term in office, they can start as a lobbyist the next day. Rep. Patrick Windhorst of Metropolis, the top Republican on the House Ethics & Elections Committee, said the lack of substantive action on ethics this spring should make it 'clear to any objective observer — any observer, really, of the state government — that the Democratic majority does not care about ethics reform, does not believe we need ethics reform and is not going to take serious action to enact ethics reform.' Rep. Maurice West, the Rockford Democrat who chairs the House committee on ethics, said his panel never held hearings on major ethics proposals during the spring session because there was no agreement with Senate Democrats to advance any bill. During the session, West repeatedly said the committee was set to meet to take testimony on proposed ethics changes. 'That was my expectation and hope, that there was going to be a robust conversation on ethics, but I also knew that I had to go through a process. This had to be agreed upon in both chambers to ensure … that we can get it signed into law,' West said. 'And if there's not an agreement, then it's an automatic brick.' After lawmakers adjourned, a spokesperson for Pritzker referred questions about proposed ethics laws to West, who said he had a brief conversation with the governor toward the end of the session about 'how we can partner … and collaborate on ethics over the summer.' 'That's all I have to say when it comes to the governor,' West said, declining to elaborate on any specific proposals. Cassidy, the House Democrat, said it may be time to take up each proposal on its own merits rather than jam them into one bill that requires Democrats in both chambers to agree before a vote is taken on ethics, elections and campaign finance matters. 'I just wonder if maybe we should rethink that,' she said. While any legislative movement on ethics languished in Springfield, Harmon, on the final scheduled day of the session, attempted to statutorily quash his case before the State Board of Elections, which acted following a Tribune review and inquiry about political contributions Harmon received last year. Elections board officials in March informed the Senate president that he had improperly accepted nearly $4.1 million in contributions exceeding the allowed campaign finance limits, and they threatened to levy a substantial fine. Harmon has filed an appeal and said he 'fully complied with the law.' At the heart of the disagreement between Harmon and election officials is a significant and controversial loophole in state campaign finance law. It allows politicians to collect contributions above state limits if any candidate in the race in which they are running — themselves or an opponent — reports reaching a 'self-funding threshold' in which they have given or loaned their campaign funds more than $250,000 for statewide races and more than $100,000 in races for the state legislature or local offices. Originally described as a method allowing a candidate to compete against a wealthy self-funded opponent or to counter a well-funded opposing group's independent expenditures, the loophole has instead become a way for candidates — even if they face no opposition — to accept unlimited contributions by purposely breaking the limits themselves. Harmon, who sponsored the earlier law, has repeatedly done that himself, giving or loaning his campaign fund more than $100,000 — sometimes by just a single dollar — to trigger the so-called 'money bomb' loophole. Harmon did it again for the 2024 campaign season when, in January 2023, he gave his state Senate campaign committee more than $100,000 even though he was not running for office last year. While members of the Illinois House are up for election every two years, state Senate seats have one two-year term and two four-year terms every 10 years. In paperwork filed with the state elections board, Harmon indicated the move allowed him to keep collecting unlimited cash through the November 2024 election. However, board officials informed him that the loophole would be closed after the March 2024 primary. Still, from the March 2024 primary through the end of that year, state records showed his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign committee collected more than $8.3 million, nearly half of which the state board has now said was over the campaign contribution limits. In appealing the board's case, Harmon's campaign fund acknowledged that, if it loses, it could be subject to a penalty of up to $6.1 million — a figure based on the 150% of the amount the board deems a candidate willingly accepted over the limits — as well as a payment of nearly $4.1 million to the state's general operating fund. Such a massive penalty, however, is unlikely. Politicians frequently challenge the board, and negotiations can result in final fines that are a fraction of the potential penalty. And if Harmon wins the appeal before the elections board, he could end up paying no penalty. In a Tribune interview last week, Harmon defended his eleventh-hour attempt to change state law with a clause that could have eliminated his elections board dispute and potential fine. He said the language he sought to insert in the statute was 'existing law.' But that is Harmon's interpretation of 'existing law,' not the elections board officials'. 'A fundamental notion of campaign finance law is that House candidates and Senate candidates be treated the same,' Harmon told the Tribune. 'The state board staff's interpretation treats House candidates and Senate candidates fundamentally differently.' When pressed on the political optics of his move, Harmon said the new clause 'was just intended to call attention' to differences in the way the board addresses House and Senate candidates. 'We'll revisit the bill after we win the case,' Harmon said, adding, 'We're going to proceed with the case under the law as written.' Welch acknowledged it was a backlash among his House Democrats over the Harmon-backed provision that resulted in the overall bill never advancing. 'I did inform (Harmon) after our caucus that we didn't have support for that, and if a bill came over with that in it, we would not take it,' Welch told the Tribune. Good-government advocates, stymied on key proposals again this spring, were taken aback when the Harmon clause appeared late in the session. 'I thought I'd seen everything, but I was shocked to see it in the bill,' said Alisa Kaplan, executive director of Reform for Illinois. 'It clearly would have changed the law, but it was framed as just a clarification of existing rules so it would apply retroactively to Harmon's case. And it was buried in an enormous omnibus bill … at the last possible minute to minimize discussion. 'Just a breathtakingly cynical use of legal language and procedure,' Kaplan said, adding: 'It's bad enough that legislative leaders regularly abuse the self-funding loophole. We should be closing the loophole, not blowing it wide open for even more opportunities for pay-to-play politics and corruption.' The two-sentence clause Harmon backed would have generally expanded the period that a senator in a four-year term who breaks the caps can keep them off. But the second sentence in the Harmon clause caused the uproar on both sides of the aisle: 'This amendatory Act of the 104th General Assembly is declarative of existing law,' phrasing many lawmakers interpreted to mean that, if passed, could have eliminated Harmon's election board dispute. Sen. Jil Tracy, a Quincy Republican, called the clause 'mind-blowing.' 'The language was brazen,' she said. 'My initial reaction was shock. I couldn't believe the majority would be that brazen.' She said she learned of the clause in the waning hours of the legislative session when a legal staffer told her the proposal would erase Harmon's case before the board. 'That bill would have condoned and made it appropriate to go beyond what the election code allows and to supersede the limits and create a path (to) interpret what President Harmon had done was OK,' said Tracy, a former assistant attorney general who served under both former Republican Jim Ryan and Democrat Lisa Madigan, the former speaker's daughter. 'He still argues what he did was OK, but why do a bill?' asked Tracy, a member of a Senate subcommittee on ethics. At an unrelated appearance in West Chicago on Thursday, Pritzker sought to vouch for Harmon while he said that he and his fellow Democrats in Springfield have sought to clean up a state with a culture of corruption. 'I know that the Senate president doesn't have any intention other than to make the law better,' he said. At the same time, the governor acknowledged he didn't 'know enough about the violations that have been alleged.' Another provision that raised eyebrows in the Harmon-backed legislation would have allowed statewide elected officials and state lawmakers running for federal offices to hold fundraisers on session days and the day before, as long as they're held outside of Sangamon County, which includes Springfield. A statewide ban on such fundraisers was a provision in the 2021 ethics law touted by Pritzker and other top Democrats. The new provision would have benefited Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, Pritzker's two-time running mate who's running for U.S. Senate, and a handful of state legislators who've declared their candidacies for the U.S. House. The candidates also would have been able to transfer money raised on session days for their federal campaigns into their state accounts, as long as they adhered to state contribution limits. Welch, Harmon and Pritzker's office all said they didn't know the origin of the language, which was presented in a brief committee hearing late on the final day of session as an attempt to align state law with rules governing fundraising for federal candidates. But West, giving the overall package its only public airing, couldn't explain how leaving a restriction in place only for Springfield's home county would pass legal muster. There was a feeling that it would be more ethical to keep in-session political fundraisers 'as far away from the state Capitol as possible,' West said. But Rep. Carol Ammons, an Urbana Democrat, called the provision problematic, saying: 'I don't know what difference it makes what county you're in. If you're fundraising while we're in session, you're fundraising while we're in session.' .
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
GOP downplays Trump-Musk feud's impact on midterms
Republicans are downplaying concerns that the feud between President Trump and Elon Musk will hamper the party's chances of defending their majorities in the House and the Senate next year. In the midst of the escalating war of words on Thursday, Musk claimed Trump would not have won the White House without him last year and floated the idea of launching a third party. Musk has also threatened to use his financial war chest and platform to challenge Republicans backing Trump's legislative agenda. However, many Republicans say Trump's influence within the party is strong enough to withstand any kind of political challenge from Musk. Others even say they still think Musk is a part of their team. 'I think if you're a Republican in a primary and you have Trump's support and Elon's opposition, you're going to be okay,' said Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), adding that the president would eclipse Musk 'by a 10 or 100-fold.' Musk notably took credit for Trump's White House during his keyboard war with Trump on Thursday, claiming Democrats would control the House and hold a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. The billionaire was the single largest donor in the 2024 general election, spending nearly $300 million. Musk's political action committee, America PAC, supported Trump and a number of Republicans running in key congressional races. The PAC has remained active during Trump's second administration, spending over $18 million in a closely watched race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. The group has also promoted Trump's work this cycle, releasing its first television ad following Trump's joint address to Congress earlier this year. But despite the resources poured into Wisconsin, the Democratic-backed candidate won the court seat in what was described by critics as an embarrassment for Musk. America PAC spent millions in 18 competitive House races. Ten of the PAC's backed GOP House candidates won their elections, while the other 8 lost. 'America PAC spent $20 million on House races but none of that was super consequential— none of it was on TV, just digital and canvassing,' said one national Republican operative, who noted Musk was still on the GOP 'team.' Speaker Mike Johnson called Musk 'a big contributor in the last election' in an interview on CNBC's 'Squawk Box' on Friday, but said it was ultimately 'a whole team effort.' 'I mean, President Trump is the most consequential political figure of his generation, of modern American history. He is the one responsible for that,' Johnson said. 'But we all worked hard. We delivered the House majority. I traveled the country nonstop. I did over 360 campaign events in 250 cities and 40 states, and I logged enough miles last year to circle the globe five and a half times. I mean, I contributed to it as well. All of our House Republicans did.' Democrats have spent much of the first half of this year making Musk a boogeyman of sorts, painting him as out of touch with most Americans. The feud between Trump and Musk does not appear to be changing that strategy going into the midterms. 'Democrats are going to win by highlighting the fact that Republicans are failing at lowering costs because they are too busy pushing tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations, while making the rest of us pay for them,' said Viet Shelton, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'Elon is, and forever will be, an instantly-recognizable manifestation of the fact that House Republicans don't work for the American people, they work for the billionaires.' Some Republicans remain weary of Musk, noting his massive online following that is made up of over 220 million followers on his platform X. Musk's views on the debt are widely shared by fiscally conservative voters. 'If Musk makes the national debt and deficit his defining issue and starts backing candidates who share that focus, it could create a real fracture inside the GOP. Trump's economic agenda has never been about fiscal restraint,' said a former White House communications aide who worked in the first Trump administration. 'If Musk begins channeling serious money into candidates who want to draw a hard line on spending and debt, you could see a Freedom Caucus 2.0 emerge — this time with financial firepower and a mandate to push back on Trump and Speaker Johnson's spending ambitions,' the aide said. But Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, threw cold water on the notion that the feud could jeopardize Republicans in the midterms. 'No, I don't think so. Now everybody's got to decide that. We all have one vote and we'll see,' Norman told The Hill. 'But I hope he keeps doing what he's doing and the team of people he put together, I want to do it statewide. Each state, I would do just what he's done with the federal government,' he added, referring to Musk's leadership at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE Subcommittee Chair Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) noted the importance of all of Trump's 2024 donors and supporters, including Musk, but suggested the two take their feud offline. 'I think every single American that voted for us deserves credit and Elon Musk is one vote,' Greene told reporters. 'I've said that every single vote and every single donor matters whether they've donated a dollar or hundreds of millions of dollars.' 'I don't think lashing out on the internet is the way to handle any kind of disagreement, especially when you have each other's cell phones,' she said. –Alex Gangitano and Emily Brooks contributed.
