Ethics panel: MN Senate President must disclose possible future conflicts
The Senate Subcommittee on Ethics on Thursday advised Minnesota Senate President Bobby Joe Champion to disclose potential conflicts of interest in future bills he sponsors.
Though in that same motion, the panel made no finding on whether Champion had a conflict of interest when he carried a 2023 bill that gave state money to a nonprofit whose founder he had done free legal work for in the past.
Further, they found no financial conflict in a bill he sponsored this year to bring that organization another $1 million.
The decision was unanimous, though the Ethics Subcommittee has two Democratic-Farmer-Labor and two Republican members and often deadlocks or rules inconclusively.
On May 5, it's expected to hear a Senate GOP complaint against Champion regarding his relationships with nonprofits he helped fund.
Champion, a Minneapolis DFLer, has been under scrutiny in recent weeks after reports that he helped the violence prevention nonprofit 21 Days of Peace obtain $3 million in funding, and that he had done pro bono work for its founder, Jerry McAfee.
The senator temporarily stepped down as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct and asked for an advisory opinion on April 7, and has maintained that his pro bono work did not coincide with his sponsorship of the bills.
''I appreciate the conclusion the members of the Ethics Subcommittee, which as expected found that I had not violated Senate rules,' Champion said in a statement. 'I sought the advisory opinion from the in full confidence that I have followed the rules of the Senate with regards to conflict of interest, and conducted myself with integrity.'
Minnesota's ethics rules for legislators are not particularly expansive. Current law bans members from voting on matters that result in a direct financial gain for themselves or their business disproportionate to others in the same field.
Political observers and lawmakers of both parties have noted that Minnesota's part-time 'citizen legislature' naturally lends itself to members voting on issues directly related to their work and communities. Teachers, nurses and business owners often back or carry bills directly related to their lines of work.
As the Senate Ethics Subcommittee prepared to pass a motion Thursday, Chair Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, who joined the committee after Champion stepped down, reflected on that challenge for Minnesota lawmakers.
'I think that we have to be very careful with this advisory opinion and what we issue, because if we're doing our job as legislators, as I said, we have a lot of relationships and a lot of people we know in the community, and that informs our work as legislators,' she said. 'That should be considered a good thing.'
Pappas said the advisory opinion from the Ethics Subcommittee telling Champion to disclose potential conflicts in the future was a reminder for all members to weigh how their connections might affect their work.
Champion's connection to nonprofits he helped fund has raised questions in the Legislature about changing state ethics rules.
Senate Republicans have said that regardless of whether Champion violated rules, state lawmakers should hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct.
Sen. Michael Kreun, R-Blaine, who brought the complaint against Champion, has said a big part of his concern is that Champion had interactions with McAfee, which would be private under attorney-client privilege rules.
'The choice to carry legislation that provided funding to an entity with which Champion has a privileged relationship without disclosing the relationship fails to meet those standards,' he said in a Thursday statement. 'This opinion from the Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct acknowledges that fact by saying he should make disclosures in the future.'
The Ethics Subcommittee will hear Kreun's complaint at a meeting where they'll officially adopt Thursday's advisory opinion. Kreun's complaint requests that the subcommittee look into whether Champion violated rules prohibiting actions that discredit the Senate or undermine public trust in government.
UMN disease research center to launch vaccine integrity project
Walz seeks GOP help on budget, blasts Trump 'chaos' in State of the State speech
Jim Gelbmann: Our partisan endorsement process is unrepresentative, polarizing and self-serving
Minnesota gun-carry permit age drops from 21 to 18 after legal challenge
Keith Ellison sues Trump administration over orders on transgender issues
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' cracks down on Biden's student loan 'scheme,' top Republican says
The chairman of a key Senate panel is claiming victory against former President Joe Biden's student loan plans as part of President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill." "The Biden administration was attempting to forgive student loans for people who willingly took on the loan and required the taxpayer, including people who never went to college and would never make what the person who took the loan would ever have the hope to make," Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., told Fox News Digital. "So we end that transfer of that student loan on the taxpayers, and that's probably our biggest savings." Cassidy's committee released its portion of the Trump agenda bill late on Tuesday. A press release for the legislation said it "ends Biden's student loan schemes that transfer debt onto the 87 percent of Americans who chose to not go to college or already paid off their loans" and "also prevents future Democrat administrations from implementing schemes." The bill specifically takes aim at Biden's expansion of Borrower Defense to Repayment regulations and Closed School Discharge regulations, which Republicans have held up as costly policies that shift federal student loan borrowers' burdens onto other taxpayers. Various versions of Biden's plans had previously been struck down in court. The bill would also eliminate federal Grad PLUS loans, a program used by graduate-level and professional students to pay for their studies, which can be used for graduate students' entire cost of attendance. It would instead keep in place a $20,500 annual limit for Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans on graduate degrees, capped at $100,000 total, excluding undergraduate loans. For professional degrees, it keeps a $50,000 annual unsubsidized loan limit and a $200,000 total cap. The legislation is also aimed at cracking down on taxpayer funding subsidizing degrees from lower-performing universities. Colleges that see people with undergraduate degrees earn less than the typical high school graduate in their state, or graduate programs where attendees then earn less than the normal bachelor's recipient, would be blocked from federal student loan programs. "What we've got was a situation where people can borrow more money than they can effectively pay back, and that destroys their life, leaving them with a debt burden which keeps them unable to do other things in life. And there's at least some sense that universities offering these programs know that's the case. And so we attempt to fix that," Cassidy said. "So we have provisions that would say that if the degree being acquired does not end up paying more, the person receiving that degree doesn't get more on average than a person who did not get that degree, then the federal government is not going to lend them money." To encourage more people to pursue non-collegiate degrees, the bill would also establish a Workforce Pell Grant. Pell Grants are currently aimed at low-income students pursuing bachelor's degrees and are generally not repaid. "For example, a student gets a commercial driver's license. They're going to go out and make $100,000 a year after a couple of years of driving, I am told. And so we want to enable those people to accomplish that," Cassidy said. Foreign income would be taken into account when evaluating Pell Grants, while farm and small business assets would not, under the GOP bill. Those and several other measures in the legislation would add up to roughly $300 billion in taxpayer savings, Cassidy said. Senate Republicans are currently working through their version of Trump's massive agenda bill, which passed the House late last month. Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to pass a sweeping bill advancing Trump's agenda on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt. They are also working to use it to bring down the national debt – nearing $37 trillion – with the aim of cutting $1.5 trillion in federal spending. Reconciliation allows the party in power to completely skirt the minority, in this case Democrats, by lowering the Senate's threshold to advance from 60 votes to 51. The legislation must adhere to a specific set of rules, however, including measures that deal with the budget, taxation, or the national debt. Both the House and Senate must agree to identical versions of the bill before it gets to Trump's desk for a signature. The House's version passed 215 to 214, and leaders there have implored the upper chamber to change as little as possible. Cassidy acknowledged there were some changes made but was optimistic about how they'll be met in the House. "There's several things, but one thing I think that they're going to like is that we do fully fund the Pell Grant program. You know, we address the shortfall there. And so I think they're going to like it," he said. "It's going to give low-income students access to career education. We need those kind of career type jobs to make sure that all this manufacturing and construction has a workforce to address it. And so we think it helps the needs of society. We think it helps the needs of the student." House and Senate GOP leaders had previously set a goal of having a bill on Trump's desk by the Fourth of July. Cassidy declined to comment on whether that was a feasible benchmark but argued that lawmakers should be ready to extend that timeline – and possibly shrink their summer recess – to get the final product. "As far as I'm concerned, the most important thing is to get it right. So if there is a delay, the president said it today – if there is a delay, that's not that big of a deal. The most important thing is we get it right," he said.
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
Marines in LA, response to Ukraine: Recap of Hegseth hearings
Marines in LA, response to Ukraine: Recap of Hegseth hearings Hegseth may also face questions this week about the costly military parade set for June 14 in Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing questions from Congress for the first time since he took over at the Pentagon. The Capitol Hill hearings, beginning on June 10, began with clashes with Democratic lawmakers and confrontations over his war on DEI, the recent deployment of troops to Los Angeles protests and the Trump administration's response to the war in Ukraine. More: Amid LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz over 2020 George Floyd riots Defense Secretary Hegseth grilled by Congress over LA protests A House subcommittee grilled Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over Marines and National Guard being sent to Los Angeles. More: Not that Benning: Hegseth renames Fort Moore, but not for Confederate general, he says Hegseth, a former Fox News host, last faced down Senators during his confirmation hearing in January, when senators on the Armed Services Committee grilled him over reports of his heavy drinking and a sexual assault allegation and his views that women should not serve in combat roles. After nearly six months of Hegseth running the Pentagon, lawmakers have more fodder for questions, including Hegseth's overturning of military diversity initiatives and firing of high-ranking women, his use of Signal to message Yemen attack plans, and the announcement a day earlier that 700 Marines were deployed to Los Angeles to quell protests over deportations. Hegseth testified alongside Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His first hearing, at the House Appropriations Committee, is a budget hearing, but sparks flew, prompted in part by the administration's actions in recent weeks. More: Trump's getting his military parade. Here's what they look like from France to Russia Here's a rundown of what went on at the hearing. Democratic Rep. Pete Aguilar sparred with Hegseth about the National Guard troops who have deployed to Los Angeles, saying the troops "have not been provided food or water" by the Defense Department. Calling Aguilar's questions a "disingenuous attack," Hegseth shot back, saying, "We are assured they're housed, fed, water capabilities in real time from my office." He said the troops would stay at least 60 days to "ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we're not going anywhere." Pressed by Aguilar about what authority allowed the Trump administration to send the troops to Los Angeles, Hegseth deflected. "If you've got millions of illegals, you don't know where they're coming from, they're waving flags from foreign countries and assaulting police officers and law enforcement officers – that's the problem," he said. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom "has failed to protect his people," Hegseth said. A question about new restrictions on the use of pronouns and gender identifiers in the military prompted a swift retort from the Defense secretary. "Men are men, women are women" in the military. and people signing up won't get a "woke indoctrination," Hegseth said. He said if they want that, they can go to college. The comments came in response to a question from Republican Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, who said it was "not a priority" for people enlisting in the military to use their preferred pronouns. Hegseth said the United States was entering a new "phase" in which the National Guard would "become a critical component of how we secure that homeland." "The National Guard is a huge component of how we see the future," he said. Hegseth has deployed thousands of troops to Los Angeles in recent days to suppress protests against the Trump administration's deportations. He has faced criticism from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats who have said the troops are adding fuel to the fire and are not being put to good use. Responding to an accusation from Rep. Ed Case, a Democrat from Hawaii, that the Trump administration "has illegally sought to destroy" the United States Agency for International Development, Hegseth he had not heard any complaints from other countries over the elimination of the agency and U.S. foreign aid programs because "a lot of them were wasteful and duplicative." "I hear nothing about that because they're not serving U.S. interests." "I don't think you're talking to the right people," Case said. Pressed by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat representing Ohio, about what he is doing to "not turn your back" on Ukraine, Hegseth said his goal was to achieve peace. He said he would need to "clarify what win means" in the war in Ukraine. "Have you visited Ukraine?" Kaptur hit back. Hegseth said he had not. Rep. Betty McCollum, a Democrat from Minnesota, pressed Hegseth over the military's recent deployment of troops in response to protests over ICE arrests in Los Angeles. "This is a deeply unfair position to put our Marines in," she said of the Pentagon's deployment of 700 Marines to the region a day prior. Hegseth invoked the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, saying Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz "abandoned a police precinct and allowed it to be burned to the ground." "President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Governor Walz... If it gets out of control, it's a bad situation for the citizens of any location." Hegseth said he and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine plan to discuss Ukraine's drone attack on Russia and how the United States can avoid a similar attack. Hegseth said the Pentagon would consider increasing counter-drone systems and that "golden dome" – the Trump administration's multi-billion-dollar missile defense plan – would contribute. "I do think it was a bold move, and it represents a new and different way of fighting wars," Caine said. Hegseth said eliminating an office that tests new technologies was a "reflection of the overall approach we take in the department, which is, 'How efficiently do we operate?'" Hegseth said after a review he led along with "our friends at DOGE" - Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, the office was eliminated. The office was "bloated and expanded well beyond" its appropriate scope, he said. In his opening statement, the Defense secretary stayed within the lines of his stated mission of "restoring the warrior ethos." "DEI is dead," he said, nodding to the diversity initiatives he has wiped out at the Pentagon. "We must overcome decades of neglect and decline," he said. "We must fortify our position as the world's most lethal fighting force, and we must act fast." (This story was updated to include video.)
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
House GOP advances first 2026 funding bill out of committee
House Republicans early Wednesday morning advanced legislation that calls for more than $450 billion to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs, military construction and other programs for fiscal year 2026. The bill advanced out of the GOP-led House Appropriations Committee along party lines, as Democrats came out in strong opposition to the plan. It marks the first of the 12 annual funding bills House GOP appropriators are hoping to move out of committee before Congress leaves for its August recess. The bill calls for about $152 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026, marking a 3 percent increase compared to current levels. Overall, the bill would provide about $453 billion for the VA, including $300 billion for mandatory programs. Among the increases Republicans have highlighted in the measure are boosts to the VA, military construction and family housing, and funding for a new homelessness program. In his opening remarks on Tuesday, Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), the head of the subcommittee that crafts the annual funding bill, said the bill ensures 'veterans get the benefits and care they've earned.' 'The bill does that while also addressing other issues affecting veterans, including homelessness, mental health services and taking care of our women veterans,' he said. 'The bill also makes crucial investments totaling nearly $18 billion in the infrastructure of our service members need to work on to live.' Democrats, however, have railed against the plan, needling Republicans for not including advanced funding for the Toxic Exposure Fund in the proposal, which they also said falls nearly $1 billion short of the funding needed for military construction. Democrats have also accused Republicans of seeking to privatize medical care for veterans. 'This bill hurdles us towards VA privatization, a top project 2025, priority that undercuts what veterans consistently ask for, which is the high quality medical care at VA, by transferring record funding from VA medical services to community care,' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), the top Democrat on the veterans' funding subcommittee, said. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) has emphasized as the committee ramps up its funding work that the legislation currently being considered will look different when eventual bipartisan spending talks begin. Senior GOP appropriators have also acknowledged that further changes are possible during the annual process as they await more information from the Trump administration about the president's vision for government funding for fiscal 2026 and beyond. 'As this process moves forward and we receive further documentation on the OMB budget, we will take it under consideration, put forward a product that best addresses the needs of our service members and veterans,' Carter said during the meeting on Tuesday, referring to the Office of Management and Budget. The bill comes about a week after hardline conservatives urged top appropriators to write bills 'consistent' with President Trump's budget request and to 'include adjustments initiated' by his Department of Government Efficiency. In a slim budget request released earlier this year, Trump called for cutting funding for domestic programs by more than $160 billion for fiscal 2026. As appropriators await more details from the administration, the committee also approved interim subcommittee allocations for a third of the annual funding bills. 'These interim allocations will allow us to begin our work. As we move forward, this committee is prepared to do the hard work – line by line – to uphold fiscal discipline and effective governance,' Cole said. However, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, criticized Republicans over the process, saying negotiators are 'beginning the appropriations process without a total funding level.' 'We are flying blind and handcuffed into the critical work of providing discretionary funding for programs and services across the government that help to grow the middle class, protect the working class, support small businesses, and grow our economy – this is important business that cannot be done responsibly without a complete vision for how we plan to fund the government.'
