While facing ethics charges, Landry pushes overhaul of ethics investigation process
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
Axios
15 hours ago
- Axios
Scoop: Schumer courts Peltola for Alaska Senate race
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is quietly pressing former Rep. Mary Peltola (D) to plunge into the Alaska Senate race. Why it matters: Schumer (D-N.Y.) is trying to recruit his way out of a bad map. Landing Peltola would give him a third statewide winner to cause problems for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). Recapturing the majority is still an uphill battle for Democrats, but when they squint — and make some favorable assumptions about tariffs and the unpopularity of the "one big, beautiful bill" — they are starting to see a path back to 51 seats. The focus of Schumer's current charm offensive is Peltola, the last Democrat to win a statewide election in Alaska, and one of just two Democrats to do so this century. Democrats want to convince her to challenge Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who is up for reelection next year. Zoom out: In New Hampshire and Georgia, the state's popular GOP governors both took passes on the Senate, disappointing many in the party. Schumer got who he wanted in Ohio with former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D), and in North Carolina with former Gov. Roy Cooper (D). The more states Schumer puts in play, the more resources he will drain from national Republicans, who will have to spend heavily to retain their incumbents. Zoom in: Democrats have been laying the foundation for a challenge of Sullivan. A group associated with a Schumer-linked PAC earlier this year spent more than $600,000 on digital ads bashing Sullivan. The spots focused on the GOP's tax and spending cut package. Alaska's unique ranked-choice voting helped Peltola win a special election in 2022. She received 40 percent of the first round votes, while her two GOP candidates divided the remaining 60 percent. But after former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was eliminated for coming in third place, more of her supporters listed Peltola as their second choice, giving her a majority victory with 51.5 percent. In 2024, House Republicans worked to ensure that only their top vote winner in the primary — who ended up being Rep. Nick Begich — would stay in the race. Begich beat Peltola on the second ballot. What they're saying:"Chuck Schumer's best options in red state Senate races are losers like Mary Peltola," said the NRSC's Nick Puglia. "She would be a standout candidate, which is probably why Sullivan is going around town griping about how nervous he is about next year," said the Senate Majority PAC's Lauren French. The bottom line: Similar to the dynamic in Ohio, there are some Alaska Democrats who would prefer Peltola run for governor.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Republican Blake Tillery announces bid for Lt. Gov.; pledges to cut state income tax
A South Georgia state senator announced a bid for lieutenant governor in Savannah Monday morning, pledging to run on what he called "Georgia values." Blake Tillery (R-Vidalia) spoke to a small crowd of supporters at Sheltair Aviation, a private and recreational fixed-base aviation operation at 100 Eddie Jungemann Drive, during his first stop on a seven-city tour around Georgia to launch his campaign. Tillery touted his record of advancing conservative policies in the state Senate while outlining a platform to cut the state income tax and fight illegal immigration. "I have a record of conservative results here in Georgia," Tillery said. "I've stood against woke ideologies; I've stood against DEI mandates and gender extremism." Tillery was elected to the state Senate in 2016 and is also the managing partner at the Tillery Firm law practice in Vidalia, where his work touches on worker's compensation, real estate closings and probate cases, according to his biography. Before being elected to state Senate, Tillery served as the Toombs County Commission chairman. The South Georgia native said he decided to run based on promises kept as a state Senator, where he pledged jobs, expanded broadband access and kept taxes low. Tillery pointed to a 15% reduction in the state income tax during his Senate tenure. "I think that voters judge candidates based on what they have accomplished ... We've accomplished those (priorities)," Tillery said in an interview. In Georgia, the lieutenant governor is the state's number two executive―after the governor. A primary role for the lieutenant governor is presiding over the Senate as Senate president. Tillery said he gained key experience for the role as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Various priorities from "election integrity" to immigration enforcement all have budget line items attached to them, providing a comprehensive view of state government, he said. "I think chairing the budget committee helps you learn every aspect of the state." Tillery joins other high-profile Republicans from the Georgia General Assembly who have entered the 2026 race. Senate Pro-Tempore John Kennedy (R-Macon) and Senate Majority Leader Steve Gooch (R-Dahlonega) have also announced candidacies for lieutenant governor. Democratic State Senator Josh McLaurin is, thus far, the only Democrat to announce a big for the seat. Current Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones is running for Governor, making the race for the state's number two spot an open seat. Tillery's campaign launch day also includes stops in Atlanta, Albany, Augusta, Columbus, Perry and Vidalia. The stops include the Georgia State Capitol and local airports, with each scheduled for roughly 45-minute appearances. "I'm doing this because Georgia is a big state, and every voice in Georgia matters," Tillery said. Evan Lasseter is the city of Savannah and Chatham County government reporter for the Savannah Morning News. You can reach him at ELasseter@ This article originally appeared on Savannah Morning News: Georgia Republican state Sen. Blake Tillery launches Lt. Gov. campaign
NBC News
4 days ago
- NBC News
Why U.S. politicians are up in arms about new internet rules in Britain
A growing number of U.S. politicians are condemning a new British law that requires some websites and apps — including some based in the United States — to check the ages of users across the pond. A bipartisan group of members of Congress visited London recently to meet counterparts and air their concerns about the U.K.'s Online Safety Act, which went into effect July 25. Vice President JD Vance has been criticizing the law for months, as have privacy advocates who argue that the law infringes on free expression and disproportionately hurts vulnerable groups. Vance criticized the U.K. again on Friday, this time in person at the start of a visit to the country. Sitting alongside British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and speaking to reporters, Vance warned the U.K. against going down a 'very dark path' of online 'censorship' that he said was trod earlier by the Biden administration. The U.K. Online Safety Act is aimed at preventing children from accessing potentially harmful material online, and internet companies are now asking British users to verify their ages in a variety of ways, including with photos of their IDs, through a credit card provider or with selfies analyzed via age-check software. But the sweeping nature of the law has caught some Britons by surprise. They're being asked to prove their age not only for pornography websites but also before they can listen to songs with explicit lyrics or access message boards to discuss sensitive subjects. Reddit, for example, is restricting access to various pages including r/stopsmoking, r/STD and r/aljazeera. Reddit said in a post about its enforcement of the law that for people in the U.K., it was now verifying ages before they can 'view certain mature content.' A spokesperson for the company said r/STD — a message board focused on questions of sexual health — is restricted because of explicit images. They said r/stopsmoking is restricted because it deals with harmful substances and that r/aljazeera — which is not affiliated with the news organization of the same name but deals with similar topics — is restricted because it depicts serious injury or violence. To get around the new law, the use of virtual private network software that can mask a person's location, also known as VPNs, has surged in the U.K. The primary argument of U.S. politicians who oppose the law is that they don't want American tech companies to have to comply, even if they're serving British customers. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said he raised his objections with U.K. government officials during meetings in London at the end of July. In a statement after his return, he said the law and other European regulations 'create a serious chilling effect on free expression and threaten the First Amendment rights of American citizens and companies.' 'We absolutely need to protect children and keep harmful, illegal content off these platforms — but when governments or bureaucracies suppress speech in the name of safety or regulation, it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the core of Western democratic values,' Jordan said. The issue may come to a head in a couple of different venues. That could be the courts if any tech companies file lawsuits over the law, or it could come up in trade negotiations if President Donald Trump decides to press the issue with British politicians, although they say it's not open to debate in trade talks. Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist and Meta board member with close ties to the Trump administration, recently called U.K. leaders to complain about the law, the Financial Times reported Friday. A spokesperson for Andreessen said the report was not true. The U.K.'s Online Safety Act is one of the most comprehensive national laws that any democracy has ever passed to try to curtail potentially harmful content online in the name of children. Parliament passed the law in 2023, and the government went through two years of writing detailed rules before putting the law into effect last month. The law is notable for a combination of reasons: the variety of content it applies to, the potential fines and the possible international reach. A wide array of content is at issue. While the 'primary' focus of the law is online material such as pornography and suicide, it also requires websites to age-gate content with bullying, serious violence, 'dangerous stunts' and 'exposure to harmful substances.' That has covered relatively mainstream services such as Spotify and Microsoft's Xbox gaming system. Companies that don't comply face potential fines of up to 10% of their global revenue, which for the biggest companies could be billions of dollars. The British regulator Ofcom, short for Office of Communications, says companies must use ' highly effective age assurance ' to restrict the riskiest types of content. And the U.K. has not been adamant that it won't allow international borders to stymie enforcement. Ofcom says it plans to apply the law to services with 'a significant number' of U.K. users, services where U.K. users 'are a target market' and services that are 'capable of being accessed' by U.K. users with a 'material risk of significant harm' to such users. The law appears to retain strong support among the British public. About 69% said they supported the new rules in a YouGov poll taken after implementation began, and 46% said they supported it 'strongly.' But 52% said they do not think the law will be very effective at preventing minors from accessing pornography. The law was passed during a previous, Conservative-led government and took effect under the current, Labour-led government. But the far-right party Reform U.K. is pushing for a repeal of the law. Party leader Nigel Farage, a former member of Parliament, has called it 'state suppression of genuine free speech,' and his party is running high in polls. 'Millions of people have noticed that what they're getting on their feeds is different to what it was,' Farage said at a recent news conference. Farage also met with visiting members of Congress last week, and the talks turned heated with Farage and Democrats exchanging insults, according to Politico, although the dispute appeared to be more about Trump's free speech restrictions than about the U.K. law. Most U.S.-based tech companies say they are complying with the new law. Microsoft said in a blog post that Xbox users in the U.K. would begin seeing notifications 'encouraging them to verify their age' as a 'one-time process,' with actual enforcement starting next year. If users don't comply, Microsoft warned, they'll lose access to social features of Xbox but will still be able to play games. Discord said it was implementing new default settings for all U.K. users, in effect treating everyone like a minor with heavy content filtering unless they verify that they're adults. Discord says users can choose to verify their age either with a face scan or an ID upload. Elon Musk's X has also restricted posts, including information about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, according to the BBC. X and Musk did not respond to requests for comment. But a few services are not complying. The far-right social media site Gab, which allows white supremacist views and other extremist content, said in a notice on its website that it had received notices from Ofcom and, rather than comply, decided to block the entire U.K. from accessing its site. The company said in the notice: 'We refuse to comply with this tyranny.' Preston Byrne, a U.S. lawyer who specializes in technology issues, has said on X that he plans to file a lawsuit soon on behalf of an unnamed client seeking to quash possible enforcement of the British law within the United States. The subject has been simmering for months ahead of the law's implementation, and it came up in February when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited the White House. In an Oval Office meeting, a reporter asked Trump what he thought of the U.K. approach to free speech, and Trump tossed the question to Vance, who expressed concern. 'We do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the U.K. and also with some of our European allies. But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens,' he said. Starmer defended his government's approach. 'We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time. Certainly, we wouldn't want to reach across U.S. systems and we don't, and that's absolutely right,' he said. British Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy later said the U.K. would not make any changes to the Online Safety Act as part of trade negotiations with the Trump administration. American privacy advocates are watching the debate play out with alarm, concerned that similar age verification laws — like new state laws targeting the Apple and Google app stores — would upend the internet closer to home. 'Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible,' wrote Paige Collings, a senior speech and privacy activist at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, in a blog post Tuesday.
