While facing ethics charges, Landry pushes overhaul of ethics investigation process
Gov. Jeff Landry is pushing an overhaul of the Louisiana Board of Ethics' investigation process while also facing ethics charges brought by the board. (Photo credit: Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator)
Gov. Jeff Landry is pushing for dramatic changes to the Louisiana Board of Ethics' investigation process that was used to charge him in 2023 with breaking the state ethics code. The changes Landry seeks would make it easier for subjects of an ethics complaint – like he is – to avoid charges or a probe into their alleged wrongdoing. The proposed modifications are part of a sweeping rewrite of the state ethics code for elected officials and public employees in House Bill 397, sponsored by Rep. Beau Beaullieu, R-New Iberia.
Beyond making it harder to bring ethics charges, the legislation also loosens limits on elected officials and state employees' state travel, weakens restrictions on government contracts with public servants and their families, and reduces requirements for elected officials and political candidates' public disclosure of financial interests.
The proposal cleared its first major hurdle Wednesday when the Louisiana House and Governmental Affairs Committee allowed it to go to the floor without any objection or amendments. Stephen Gelé, Landry's private lawyer who handles ethics and campaign finance concerns for the governor, helped craft the legislation. He presented the bill alongside Beaullieu in the House committee. Gelé is also one of the attorneys defending Landry against ethics board's charges for not disclosing flights Landry took on a political donor's plane to and from Hawaii. The ethics board and Landry, through Gelé, are still in negotiations about the appropriate punishment for the governor's alleged violation.
In an interview Wednesday, Gelé said the bill would not affect Landry's existing ethics case because its changes would only apply to future cases. Beaullieu said he brought the bill after hearing complaints about the ethics board's investigations being 'overly aggressive.' Gelé has previously accused the ethics board of bullying people who face complaints. If the legislation passes, the ethics board would have a far higher threshold to clear for launching an investigation into potential ethical misconduct. Under the bill, an elected official or public employee would be able to avoid an investigation into misconduct if they had 'already cured any potential violation' – a standard that critics said was vague and difficult to understand.
The person facing the investigation could also ask a district court judge to limit or shut down an ethics board probe if the alleged target or a witness in the case might experience 'annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense' as a result of the inquiry, according to the bill.
The ethics board would also have to justify an investigation, making the case that the agency's 'limited resources' should be spent on a particular alleged misconduct claim over other cases.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Likewise, a district judge would only be able to seek relevant information for a case if it's deemed cost effective for the state, and 'the importance of the information sought outweighs the burden of producing the information.' Steven Procopio, president of the nonpartisan Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, called the proposed rewrite problematic. The changes would give too much leverage to the person facing misconduct allegations, he said.
'If someone has committed a violation of the ethics code, embarrassment is not a defense,' said Procopio, whose organization advocates for transparency and fairness in state government. Barry Erwin, policy director for the nonpartisan Leaders for a Better Louisiana, agreed with Procopio. He complained the proposed new process features too many obstacles before the ethics board could launch an investigation.
Erwin and Procopio also expressed concerns about the two-thirds vote that would be needed from ethics board members multiple times before any single probe into misconduct could take place.
Elected officials now have more control over the board than they have had in years. Landry pushed the legislature in 2024 to upend the makeup of the ethics board membership and give him more influence over it. The board used to consist of 11 positions, filled by the governor and legislators from lists of nominees provided by the state's private university and college leaders. The higher education administrators were involved to insulate the board from political pressure.
Landry and lawmakers passed a law last year that eliminated the private college leaders' nominees. They also expanded the board to 15 seats, which the governor and legislators fill directly. The governor now picks nine members, and the Senate and House pick three members each. This means the governor could potentially block an ethics board investigation through his nine appointees under the new legislation. Only five members need to vote against an investigation for it to be killed.
Another portion of Beaullieu's legislation targets the issue that got Landry in trouble with the ethics board – private plane travel. The bill would allow state officials to report trips on private planes as if they are the equivalent of purchasing a business class or coach airplane ticket on a commercial flight.
Beaullieu's proposal also eases restrictions on legislators' travel for state business on private planes provided by political donors or outside organizations.
Legislators were previously only allowed to accept flights on private planes for public speeches if they were traveling within the United States or Canada. If the bill is approved, they will be able to accept private plane travel for government business anywhere in North America or the U.S. territories, including locations in the Caribbean, as long as they are making a public speech, participating in a panel discussion or making a media appearance.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's fight with Musk reveals MAGA's biggest delusion
He'd never admit it publicly, but I'm betting Donald Trump is regretting that he relaxed the White House rules about drug testing. As I predicted last week, Elon Musk's vow to leave politics behind did not last long. But I confess I had no idea that he would come back to the fold by taking swings at his beloved daddy replacement, Trump. It seems, however, that someone told Musk in recent days how much his businesses, which rely heavily on government subsidies, will be screwed by the president's already imperiled budget bill. So now the tech billionaire has become fixated on killing the bill. Musk kicked off his crusade Tuesday by tweeting that Trump's bill is a "disgusting abomination," and has been on a tear since, rallying his supporters to oppose the bill and making room for more Republicans on Capitol Hill to start pulling back support. As he and Trump snipe at each other publicly, the efforts to pretend this is a friendly disagreement are falling apart. Even if Musk fails in his efforts to kill Trump's bill, this battle is exposing a deeper truth that Miller can't hide with his lies about Trump winning in a "landslide": The MAGA coalition is fragile and some of the differences are starting to tear at the seams less than half a year into the second Trump term. Trump's slim win in 2024 was no doubt due in large part to Musk, and not just the eye-popping quarter-billion-plus Musk spent to push the old man's orange carcass over the finish line. It's because Musk and other influential figures, especially those associated with Silicon Valley or who pretend to be former liberals, were able to convince a chunk of more secular, largely male voters to throw their lot in with the Christian nationalist base that is the backbone of the MAGA movement. But while these two groups joined together based on a shared animosity towards racial minorities and women, it was always a far more uneasy alliance than Musk or Trump wanted to admit. And now it's getting shakier as two narcissistic billionaires are at of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., lies all day about everything, but he was probably telling the truth when he sneered that "the EV mandate is very important to" Musk. Tesla sales have been crashing since Musk joined the MAGA movement, meaning he needs government subsidies for electric vehicles more than ever. But while I have no doubt Musk is way more concerned about his bottom line than about government spending — his ostensible reason for hating the bill — his anger would be impotent if it didn't tap into existing tensions between the newfangled technofascist wing of the GOP and more traditional Republicans. "The Silicon Valley tech world does not like this bill," Tim Miller of The Bulwark explained on his podcast Wednesday. It's not just Musk, but many wealthy leaders who are deeply invested in the energy and tech areas that President Joe Biden's administration invested so heavily in. They stabbed Democrats in the back as a thank-you for that money, and now are shocked they are being similarly betrayed by the Republicans they joined up with. I don't think Musk and Trump were actually fighting when Musk ostensibly "left" last week — even as Trump was assuring reporters his billionaire buddy was going nowhere — but there's no doubt this conflict is disrupting their months of narcissistic codependency. On Thursday, Trump got angry and accused Musk of having "Trump derangement syndrome" on camera. It was during the same event that he lamented that the Allies prevailed on D-Day, suggesting the 78-year-old was in one of his increasingly common moments of uninhibited honesty. This conflict was brewing for reasons that run deeper than Musk and Trump's competing egos or Silicon Valley's dependency on government funding, which their leaders disparage. The atheistic world of pseudo-intellectualism that Musk and his minions come from was always going to have friction with the Christian nationalists who actually run the MAGA-ified Republican Party. The most recent sign I've seen that there's trouble in fascist paradise came late last month, from a YouTube video that, at first blush, seems like it's not related: Jordan Peterson's ill-fated effort to "debate" 20 atheists at once. Peterson is a former psychology professor remade into a MAGA culture warrior, and was a huge player in radicalizing a lot of young, secular men to the right for years before Musk got into the game. But he, like Musk, has been feeling pressure lately to fully MAGA-ify by openly embracing Christianity. Last July, Musk and Peterson even did an interview together where they talked up being a "cultural Christian," creating the space for people who don't believe in God or Jesus to support Christian nationalists in their theocratic goals. But Peterson's stint on the zoo-like faux-debate show "Jubilee" exposed how untenable the Christians-who-don't-believe stance may be. Initially, it was billed as "1 Christian versus 20 atheists," but then one of the atheists outed Peterson, by simply asking Peterson a simple question: "Am I not talking to a Christian?" Peterson started yelling diversions and using other tactics to avoid answering the question. He did it again with another atheist by trying to nitpick what the word "believe" means when asked if one "believes" in God. It's all very funny, because it's obvious Peterson doesn't believe in God or Jesus, but also wants the cultural cachet of being a Christian on the right. This matters because Peterson is up there with Musk for representing the more secular, nerdy wing of MAGA, which also happens to be comprised of some of the most fairweather Trump supporters. These are those young men who voted for Biden in 2020 and switched to Trump in 2024, helping Trump barely win the election. With the help of Musk and Peterson, they convinced themselves they can buddy up with people who believe in demon possession and think porn should be banned, all without risk to themselves. On Thursday, Musk complained that Trump was showing "ingratitude," claiming Trump would have lost the election without his support. (Which is probably true!) This budget fight exposes how delusional that attitude always was. It's not about religion, per se, but the culture clash between the Musk fanboys and the Christian nationalist debate is driving much of this. Musk and his acolytes envision a technofascism that sucks all the money out of social services and puts it into the tech industry, even as it pursues goals typically disliked by the Christian right, such as clean energy production. Meanwhile, the Christian right wing of the party, while happy to pass huge cuts to Medicaid and Obamacare, is largely leaving untouched Social Security or Medicare, which their working-class and aging base depends on. The techbro fascists may hate the liberals they live next door to, but at the end of the day, they're still part of the urban, atheistic, educated class that the MAGA movement demonizes. That difference was not going to be papered over forever.

3 hours ago
As Louisiana's governor faces ethics charges, his lawyer raises bar for future ethics investigations
NEW ORLEANS -- Louisiana is poised to adopt new measures that watchdogs warn raise barriers to holding public officials accountable via the state's ethics board. The legislation was drafted by the personal attorney of Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, who faces charges brought by the board for violating state ethics laws. Proponents say the measures give those accused of ethics violations more opportunities to respond to allegations, increases transparency and limits abuses of a process they claim is often unjust. But watchdog groups — and the Board of Ethics — warn the changes will undermine the board's ability to hold public officials accountable. While the changes would not apply to Landry's current charges, the legislation further bolsters the governor's power over a state board largely made up of his own appointees. Having overwhelmingly passed in the House and Senate this week — only three lawmakers voted against it — the bill awaits Landry's signature. Republican Rep. Gerald 'Beau' Beaullieu, who sponsored the bill, said it was brought forth after officials complained that the board's investigation process was 'more like being investigated by the Gestapo.' Landry's office declined to comment. Another bill would share the names of complainants with officials they are accusing of wrongdoing, as well as limit the board's ability to launch investigations. Landry's private attorney, Stephen Gelé, drafted the legislation, which the governor supports. Gelé is defending Landry against ethics charges brought in 2023 for undisclosed free plane rides to Hawaii when he served as the state's attorney general. Gelé said negotiations are progressing to 'amicably resolve the charges.' Last year, Gelé warned lawmakers that the ethics board's investigatory powers are 'dangerous, unwarranted, and threaten well-established fundamental constitutional rights" and he has sought to rein them in with new legislation. The bill's supporters say it gives the board more discretion about whether to pursue investigations and bring charges, cuts down on waste of taxpayer dollars and strengthens due process rights for the accused. Yet these changes are raising red flags. In a letter to lawmakers, the Board of Ethics warned that the bill's requirement to share copies of all subpoenas with officials under investigation allows them to 'influence a witness's documents or responses.' Critics say the bill undercuts the board's authority by granting local courts the power to quash investigations, gives officials opportunities to run out the clock on the board's one-year timeline to bring charges and prevents the board from investigating violations that were disclosed by public officials seeking the board's advisory opinion. The bill also requires a two-thirds board vote to approve an investigation into a sworn complaint and another two-thirds vote on whether to file charges. Current policy requires only majority votes. Barry Erwin, president of the Council for a Better Louisiana, a nonpartisan government accountability group, said the bill's two-thirds vote requirements constitute a 'high bar to overcome' for a board of political appointees. 'I just think in real life, in very political situations, it's hard for some of these board members to act with the independence in the system we had before,' Erwin said. The other bill under consideration — which Gelé said he did not craft and Landry has not publicly supported — would require anyone bringing an ethics complaint to disclose their name and file the complaint in person at the ethics board offices in Baton Rouge. The bill passed in the House with only seven lawmakers opposed and is pending final passage in the Senate. In a legislative committee hearing, David Bordelon, general counsel for the ethics board, warned that the bill would enable officials 'to intimidate a witness or potentially alter information that's requested.' Bordelon said the measure would 'drastically reduce the number of complaints." The legislation's sponsor, Republican Rep. Kellee Hennessey Dickerson, said her bill is part of a fight for 'truth' and 'justice.' 'For those of us who have been through it, it helps develop peace of mind, knowing who your accuser is, especially when you are spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to try and clear your good name,' said Dickerson, who was fined $1,500 for an ethics violation in 2023. She argued people frequently file complaints to harass their political opponents. Bordelon countered that the board dispassionately evaluates complaints and provides the accused with the opportunity to defend themselves if charges are brought. The bill also prevents the ethics board from launching investigations based on non-governmental sources such as media reports. Following legislation passed last year, the governor directly appoints nine of the board's 15 members, with the Legislature appointing the rest. Officials with the legislative and executive branches now have more control over those who may be tasked with investigating them, watchdogs note. 'It's gone from a process that was as much arm's length away from politics as we could make it, and we had it that way for many years, to a process now that is very much more political than we've ever seen it," Erwin said. 'It's going to be very difficult for the board to act in a way that guarantees that kind of oversight we want to have.' This story has been corrected to show that the bill has already passed the House and Senate, not that it is awaiting approval in the House. ___
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud
SALT LAKE CITY () — President Donald Trump and Elon Musk's relationship as the two sniped jabs at each other on social media. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) shared his thoughts on the feud in a few posts on his personal X account. Sen. Lee of the Musk and President Trump and stated that he really likes both of them, seemingly disappointed that the two are at odds. Later, Lee also replied to a post by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who said that Musk did not get involved in government to enrich himself and politicians did not understand that. Lee agreed that Musk was never in government for money. PREVIOUSLY: Musk backs call to impeach Trump, replace him with Vance Lee also posted about his desire for Musk and Trump to reconcile, in one post asking people to reply if they agree that the world is a better place with the 'Trump-Musk bromance fully intact.' The feud between Musk and Trump comes after Musk in the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) at the end of May and Musk attended with a black eye. The public disagreements between the President and the richest man in the world began when Musk , calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' Then during an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz Thursday, Trump said that he was in Musk following his criticisms. In response, Musk took to X, posting claims that Trump had ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He claimed that Trump's involvement is the reason that the Epstein files have not been made public. Later, Musk calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced by Vice President JD Vance, agreeing with the post. Utah man pleads guilty to attempting to hire hitman while behind bars in 2020 Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud Chrysler at 100: Plans for a bold comeback Wyoming state senator proposes eliminating property taxes More heavy rain, rumbles for southern & central Utah Thursday evening Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.