Latest news with #HouseRepublicanCaucus
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Broader campaign spending with less public disclosure still looms in Louisiana
The Louisiana Legislature is advancing legislation that would allow politicians to spend their campaign funds on a broader group of expenses, including country club memberships and gym fees, while providing less transparency about who provided the money. (Photo by Julie O'Donoghue/Louisiana Illuminator) The Louisiana Legislature is advancing legislation that would allow politicians to spend their campaign funds on a broader group of expenses, including country club memberships and gym fees, while providing less transparency about who provided the money. House Republican Caucus Chairman Mark Wright, R-Covington, is the sponsor of House Bill 693 and said several elected officials and campaign finance experts had input on the proposal. The 101-page legislation makes 'little to no change in substantive law' and mostly brings 'practices that have been followed for decades' into the state code, Wright said at a Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee meeting Wednesday. Louisiana's Ethics Administration David Bordelon, who is in charge of enforcing the state's campaign finance laws, had a different take. While the legislation reinforces some of the state ethics board's guidance on campaign finance, it also 'undoes' previous instruction the board has issued about political spending, he said at the same meeting. Republican Gov. Jeff Landry is the driving force behind this massive campaign finance rewrite. Two private attorneys for Landry, Stephen Gelé and Charles Spies, helped draft the proposal. Gelé and Spies are representing the governor in charges he faces from the ethics board over failing to disclose trips he took on a political donor's private plane to Hawaii in 2021. That case isn't affected by Wright's legislation. Gele said the bill is meant to correct over-enforcement of campaign finance laws. The ethics board's aggressive posture has impeded on the public's right to free speech and political expression, he said. 'That right is burdened when you have to pay lawyers and accountants significant amounts of money to make sure you are complying with the law or to fight ethics complaints over the law,' Gele told lawmakers in the committee hearing. Landry, as governor, stands to benefit more from the loosening of campaign finance restrictions than any other elected official in the state. He has more money in his campaign accounts, and his reelection campaign in 2027 will likely be the most expensive. Wright's legislation makes it easier for politicians to raise money and curbs existing public disclosure of that fundraising. It also explicitly permits politicians to spend their campaign cash on expenses the ethics board has been scrutinizing. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Spending more freely As one example, the bill would enshrine the right to spend campaign money on 'events related to the Mardi Gras celebration in Washington D.C.,' a five-day celebration that takes place every year in January. Lawmakers have complained in recent months that the ethics board was questioning their Washington Mardi Gras expenses. But who the board might be scrutinizing hasn't been disclosed publicly because its investigations are confidential. Senate committee members pushed back on other carve outs for campaign spending in the bill. On Wednesday, the committee removed a provision that would have allowed political funds to go toward paying parts of candidates' home mortgages and utility bills. They also tweaked language in the bill permitting politicians to cover their country club dues, gym memberships and Louisiana Mardi Gras krewe fees with campaign funds. The Senate committee replaced the words 'country club' and 'health club' with 'private club' in the legislation. They also added a clause requiring politicians who want to use their money for club memberships to produce 'a preponderance of evidence that the expense was not for personal use.' This means dues for country clubs, gyms and Mardi Gras krewes could still be covered with campaign cash, but the politician might be asked to justify the expense. 'Be very careful about using campaign funds for subsidizing your lifestyle,' said Sen. Greg Miller, R-Norco, who offered the amendment at the committee meeting. 'I don't think we want to encourage that.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Less disclosure on campaign spending While allowing candidates to spend more freely, the bill includes provisions that would lessen the amount of information available to the public about political donations and spending. Wright's legislation raises the dollar-amount threshold at which a political donation or expense has to be included on a public campaign finance report more than 20 times. For example, the current law requires campaign contributions and expenditures that are over $200 and given within 20 days ahead of an election to be reported on a public campaign finance report within 48 hours. The proposed law would increase that threshold to $5,000. Individuals who are not political candidates or explicitly with a political committee could also spend money on an election without disclosing contributions they accepted for the politicking under the legislation. These nontraditional political campaigns would also only have to disclose campaign spending if it was over $1,000 and included 'express advocacy.' In the bill, 'express advocacy' is defined as political communication that features phrases like 'vote for' and 'defeat' or that includes the candidate's name and the office they are seeking. More subtle campaign expenditures – those that don't mention an election or involve public advertising – wouldn't have to be disclosed by sources that aren't overtly political. Initially, this legislation also eliminated all campaign finance reporting requirements for ballot proposition campaigns, such as state constitutional amendments and tax millages. Wright backed off those changes when they proved unpopular. The bill needs at least three more votes to pass, including from the full House and Senate. Those must be taken before the legislative session ends Thursday.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Speaker Dustin Burrows, once tagged as 'liberal,' kept skeptics at bay by leaning into a conservative agenda
Back in December, Rep. Dustin Burrows' grasp on the speakership was, at best, tenuous. His main rival, Rep. David Cook of Mansfield, had already won the endorsement of the House Republican Caucus, a victory his backers argued should've clinched his ascent to speaker of the GOP-controlled Texas House. Instead, Burrows, surrounded by Republicans willing to defy caucus rules, claimed just minutes later that the race was over and that he had the 76 votes needed to lock up the gavel. He touted an even mix of Democratic and GOP support, though some Republicans immediately asked for their names to be removed, pushing him back under the threshold to win. The competing pronouncements deepened a bitter, months-long power struggle within a Republican Party that had churned through three speakers in four sessions, and it amplified demands by grassroots activists to sideline Democrats and lean into the party's most partisan impulses. Cook carried the banner of the hardline, so-called 'reformers,' whose allies outside the chamber maligned Burrows as a 'liberal' intent on empowering Democrats. Burrows, in fact a staunch conservative and a key player in the inner circle of House leadership, represented a continuation of the establishment that the party's rightmost faction had spent years fighting to depose. Burrows won the race, finally, on the first day of the legislative session, with a coalition made up of 49 Democrats and 36 Republicans. His reliance on the minority party prompted immediate attacks from his right flank and fueled charges that he would cater to the Democratic bloc that drove his victory. Some of the newly seated 'reformers' openly threatened retribution in next year's primaries for colleagues who had backed him. The speaker's race was over, but now Burrows would have to govern a House wracked by months of acrimony, raising questions about how much could get done with one chamber of the Legislature at war with itself. Instead, the Lubbock Republican emerged 140 days later from his first session wielding the gavel with a laundry list of new conservative laws to point to, having almost entirely avoided the turmoil his election portended. 'With 150 members, you're always going to have 150 perspectives — that's part of what makes our chamber unique,' Burrows said in a statement. 'But the speaker's job isn't to force uniformity or go to battle with the Senate on every topic, it's to protect the institution by making sure members have the tools and support they need to succeed on behalf of their districts and go home to show real accomplishments to the people they represent. I think we accomplished that.' Burrows began the session with a clear eye toward retaining the speakership and detaching himself from the tenure of his now-politically radioactive predecessor, Beaumont Rep. Dade Phelan. He aligned the House closely with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the powerful presiding officer of the Senate and frequent antagonist of past speakers, and built goodwill with Gov. Greg Abbott by prioritizing school vouchers, the governor's top priority. And he worked methodically to win over skeptical members of his caucus, giving some committee chairmanships and making sure others saw their pet issues reach the floor. A careful tactician with years of experience in House leadership, Burrows managed to deliver almost all major Republican priorities, including vouchers, tougher bail laws and a raft of socially conservative policies. Yet he did so without fully alienating the Democrats who powered him to the speaker's chair, even as they saw their party's priorities die and failed to stop most of the GOP's top items. 'We really didn't know what to expect because of how he was elected,' said Rep. Mitch Little, a Lewisville Republican and Cook devotee who once slammed Burrows' supporters for making a 'brazen attempt to circumvent the will of the voters.' 'But to be quite honest,' Little said at the end of the session, 'if he had been elected by all Republicans, I don't know how this session would have really gone any differently.' Complaining about the few unfinished items, he added, would be 'picking nits more than anything.' Not everyone came away from the session happy. Some far-right lawmakers and activists continued to bemoan that the Legislature didn't provide enough property tax relief and that other legislation was left on the table, including a sweeping bill to restrict the flow of abortion medication into the state and legislation to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. 'I cannot go back in good conscience to my constituents and tell them that out of $24 billion in surplus money that belongs to them, I supported a budget that only is going to return $6.5 billion,' Rep. Mike Olcott, R-Fort Worth, said on the floor in opposing the House's budget proposal for not devoting enough to tax cuts. Some Democrats walked away feeling like they got little for their vote to secure Burrows' speakership, having expected more conservative legislation to get bottled up by the speaker's appointed committee chairs. Democrats were particularly incensed about a bill banning K-12 student clubs focused on sexuality and gender identity, which they argued would endanger children and strip them of their dignity. Rep. Rafael Anchía, a Dallas Democrat whose daughter was vice president of a school pride club, told the Tribune in the final days of session that he 'didn't sign up for five anti-LGBT bills this session.' It was an allusion to other measures Burrows greenlit through the House, including one that strictly defines man and woman in state records based on reproductive organs — a change that could have far-reaching implications for transgender Texans. Still, barring an unexpected challenger or upheaval in the 2026 elections, Burrows is primed to maintain control of the chamber with greater Republican support, while avoiding the level of scorched-earth infighting that defined the end of Phelan's speakership. And despite the session's conservative bent, Democrats have not shown any makings of a revolt that could imperil Burrows' position. 'He knows that we have a voice, and he knows we represent a whole lot of Texans, so he did give us some opportunities to be heard, at least,' Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., D-Fort Worth, said. 'He's a good listener. Because of that, I welcomed the opportunity to minimize as much damage as I could.' Burrows' elevation by Democrats to speaker was met with immediate skepticism from many Republicans, and, importantly, from Patrick, who tightly controls the Senate. 'If he can pull it off — if he is the Houdini of the House, and he can pass all the conservative bills that we want — then I'll pat him on the back and say job well done,' Patrick said in an interview with The Texan News, while also emphasizing that he was willing to give Burrows a chance. 'But man, he's put himself in a tough spot.' In his acceptance speech after winning the gavel, Burrows promised to protect the House as an independent institution, where lawmakers could disagree with each other without fear of repercussions and get a fair shake, even if they'd opposed him. 'This is the people's House,' he said. 'I commit to you today: Every member will have a voice.' To many members, he followed through. His goal from the start, several lawmakers of both parties said, was to ensure all members felt like they were able to contribute to the work of the House, and to establish a solid footing with the Senate and governor's office. 'Whether someone supported me for speaker or not,' Burrows said, 'my message was the same to every member: If you're serious about governing and ready to do the work, you'll have a voice at the table.' Hardline Republicans won their main demand of barring Democrats from chairing committees, ending a House tradition in place since the 1970s that preserved a smidgen of power for the minority party. Still, Burrows worked to ensure that Democrats would continue to have a role to play, granting them a vice chair position on each panel that some later said helped foster a sense of cooperation. And he held regular, substantive meetings throughout the session with both chairs and vice chairs, according to lawmakers in both parties. Burrows' committee assignments also signaled a desire to move beyond the infighting, lawmakers said. He appointed four Republicans who opposed his speakership to lead various panels, and he named Rep. Gary VanDeaver, R-New Boston, to chair the Public Health Committee — a move that VanDeaver said he took as a vote of confidence, despite his opposition to school vouchers, a major GOP priority of the session. 'He forgave the people who had come after him,' the rural Republican said. 'It was clear that he wanted to let bygones be bygones and bring the House together and work for the future. And I think it paid off.' Burrows also worked to develop his relationship with Patrick and advance Abbott's priorities, all seven of which made it across the finish line. It was a stark departure from Phelan's last term, when his bitter feud with Patrick boiled over into multiple special sessions on property taxes, border security and vouchers — issues that were each wrapped up by the time lawmakers adjourned this week. The speaker's interest in wiping the slate clean was evident when, in early March, he handed over two boxes of 'detailed expenditures' outlining how much the House spent on Attorney General Ken Paxton's impeachment in 2023. That fulfilled Patrick's longstanding insistence on auditing each chamber's impeachment spending and symbolically closed the chapter on an issue that divided the chambers above all else. Throughout the session, the 'Big Three' also met weekly for breakfast, and Patrick refrained from publicly criticizing Burrows, even when it seemed the House was moving slowly. 'The alignment of interests between the three this time, and the assessment that each made about getting along to some extent with the other, also helped Burrows,' said Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. 'That was clearly purposeful.' Burrows also made early moves to consolidate his support among Republicans, the majority of whom had opposed his bid for speaker. The House took up and passed the voucher program early in the session, clearing away a top priority of Abbott and Patrick's that had torn Republicans apart in the past. The vote also earned Burrows and every other pro-voucher Republican a pledge of support from President Donald Trump, whose endorsement is significant with GOP primary voters. And Burrows freed members to pursue their priorities, regardless of their seniority or whether they initially supported him, lawmakers said. Little, the anti-Burrows Republican who was serving his first term, was thrust into the middle of high-stakes negotiations over bail policy, a top priority of Abbott and Patrick's, and over legislation to curb personal injury payouts. Rep. Shelley Luther of Tom Bean, another freshman Republican who had vowed to oppose the Burrows-Phelan leadership contingent, carried a conservative priority through the House to hold vaccine manufacturers liable for injuries caused by their vaccines. 'The members that wanted to show up for work every day and represent their districts and roll up their sleeves and go to work found a speaker that was ready and eager to lock arms with them and put them to work,' GOP Rep. Jeff Leach of Allen, a close Burrows ally, said. Those who came to the Capitol intent on playing politics or elevating themselves, he added, were 'probably leaving Austin feeling pretty frustrated right now, and that's a good thing.' Any flashes of right-wing opposition throughout the session were quickly dispatched. In April, Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian and chief House agitator, raised a motion to oust Burrows from the speakership. The motion was swatted down, with all but one other member rejecting it and House lawmakers jeering during Harrison's speech. Burrows 'used that as a tool to draw the caucus together,' Little said. Harrison, who sought to be the voice of the resistance, ultimately alienated many of his natural ideological allies, Henson said. He posted frequently on social media accusing the House of not working — even as members were grinding through all-day committee hearings — and was openly accused by his colleagues of using theatrics to raise his own political profile. Harrison's 'particular profile and people's impression of him,' Henson said, 'disrupted any chance of a real, sustained, active opposition to Burrows from inside the caucus.' In a statement, Harrison said that the 'only thing the caucus was united in was passing big government liberalism,' pointing to what he cast as insufficient property tax relief and a bloated budget, among other issues. 'Texans deserve leaders willing to stand up to the swamp, even if it means standing alone,' Harrison said. 'My motion to vacate speech was the most enduring truth spoken on the floor all session, and I was speaking for every freedom-loving Texan who was betrayed.' By the last month of session, Republican priorities — including socially conservative items like a requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted in public school classrooms, bills targeting transgender Texans, and a ban on diversity, equity and inclusion in K-12 schools — were winning approval in the House at a steady clip. Burrows, whose record as a member focused more on property tax relief and limiting the powers of progressive city leaders, was quiet on many of the red-meat issues that featured prominently on Patrick's priority list. Instead, Republican lawmakers said, he let the members decide. 'My role as speaker is to call balls and strikes, managing the legislative process so the priorities of the chamber move forward when they have the support to pass,' Burrows said. 'And the truth is, the House and Senate found alignment on a number of long-debated issues. That's not about falling in line — it's about recognizing when the timing, support and momentum are there to act.' Any one of those items failing could have triggered a fight with the Senate. Their passage reflected not only the speaker's firm conservative views, lawmakers said, but also a chamber remade by last year's cutthroat primaries. Burrows accepted the House's appetite for a more ambitious conservative agenda, rather than fighting to preserve the role it once played in moderating Patrick's hardline impulses. 'The House is lurching toward more conservative representation,' Little said. 'Burrows appreciates that, and is using that moment to his advantage to move the policy initiatives that he has to move.' The House's close alignment with Patrick, however, raised the question of whether Burrows had stood up for his chamber enough against the Senate. Though some argued that the ideological alignment between the bodies meant Burrows didn't have to fight back as much as previous speakers, critics of the dynamic argued that the speaker let the House and its members get run over by the Senate on a few key issues. Some lawmakers argued that Burrows made a critical tactical error in passing school vouchers so early in the session without an ironclad agreement that the Senate would move in tandem to approve the House's public school funding package. Burrows had branded the two bills as the 'Texas Two-Step,' in an effort to help soothe lawmakers who were open to supporting the voucher program but worried about its effect on public schools. Instead, the school funding package got caught in negotiations that became colored by an unrelated Patrick priority: a ban on all THC products. Though Rep. Ken King, R-Canadian and chair of the influential State Affairs Committee, developed a sweeping regulatory framework that would have preserved some THC products, the House reverted his legislation to a ban, with supporters pointing to a promised expansion of Texas' medical marijuana program as a counterbalance. At first, the expansion Patrick agreed to did not go as far as some House lawmakers who supported the THC ban believed. That gave some the impression that the House had been played. Still, Patrick later agreed to the core elements of the House's proposed expansion of the Texas Compassionate Use Program, and on school funding, lawmakers arrived at a compromise both sides could endorse, with Burrows playing a central role in the negotiation. Burrows argued that the voucher program always had the votes this session, and was never a 'trade-off or a bargaining chip.' 'It was never a matter of trading this for that, or the House would have moved them in one bill or made them contingent on the other,' he said. The school finance bill was a massive and complex package that couldn't be rushed, he said, adding, 'It was never a matter of 'if.'' Leach, who spearheaded negotiations with the Senate on a number of high-priority bills, added that the openness between Burrows and Patrick 'helps all of us do our jobs.' 'I was in those rooms, and the relationship between the chambers is strong,' Leach said. 'You've got House members and senators working together like we haven't in a really long time.' In a statement last month, Patrick disputed the notion that either chamber 'gets its way over the other' and noted that, without cooperation from both, 'nothing gets to the governor's desk to be signed into law.' 'The Speaker and I don't keep track of what's a Senate bill or a House bill,' Patrick said. While some Democrats found meaningful roles behind the scenes and a willing audience in Burrows, others left the session feeling betrayed. One Democratic lawmaker, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, said their 'biggest regret' of the session was supporting Burrows for speaker. 'He couldn't have won without us, and we've gotten run over on almost all of our major issue areas,' the lawmaker said. 'He ran on protecting the House from the lieutenant governor and the governor. That was his pitch to Democrats. That has certainly not happened. If anything, the governor and the lieutenant governor have way more influence and control of the House than they ever have.' Other Democrats maintained their support for Burrows, arguing that he protected the institution, recognized that he was speaker of the entire House and provided space for Democrats to express their preferences and dilute some conservative legislation they largely did not support. Burrows especially developed a relationship with Democratic members of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, lawmakers said. To demonstrate the House's resolve, lawmakers of both parties pointed to the bail package, which the House amended to win the requisite bipartisan support while rejecting two other proposals demanded by Abbott. Members also spotlighted the school finance bill, which included Democratic priorities such as pre-K funding and more flexibility for school districts than the Senate had initially proposed. The changes those bills underwent, the lawmakers said, reflected the ability of House Democrats and Republicans alike to make their mark on priority legislation. 'The fact that Dustin is a rock solid conservative should surprise no one,' Leach said. Still, he added, if lawmakers 'wanted to work and fight for their values, even if it's stuff that he disagreed on, they were able to do so. Maybe not successfully — but the House was the people's House, and that's largely due to his leadership.' The alternative, as promised by Cook and the insurgent movement, was to prevent any Democratic bills from receiving a vote before all conservative priorities passed, and to cut Democrats — who make up more than 40 percent of the House — out of dealmaking entirely. As he gaveled out the session on Monday, Burrows noted how much the chamber had evolved since January. 'We started the session as a House in a bit of uncertainty,' he said as lawmakers embraced and readied themselves to leave Austin. 'I believe that we ended in a much more unified and solid place.' Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Bloomberg
02-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
House GOP Watches for Senate Changes to Trump Tax Bill
Republican Michigan Representative Lisa McClain says she hopes senators "don't do a lot" to change the House-passed tax-cut and spending bill because vote margins are so narrow. McClain, who is also Chair of the House Republican Caucus, is optimistic the bill will ultimately pass once it is back in the House. (Source: Bloomberg)
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House Republicans call on Moore to veto fee bills
A Maryland state flag flies outside the State House in Annapolis. (File photo by Danielle E. Gaines/Maryland Matters) House Republicans on Monday called on Gov. Wes Moore (D) to veto four bills that would increase state fees on various licenses, permits and other filings. The letter from the 39-member House Republican Caucus was released a day before Moore was scheduled to hold his third post-legislative bill signing of the 2025 session. 'On numerous occasions, you have indicated your concerns about the impact federal actions can have on Maryland families and businesses,' the caucus wrote in its letter to Moore. 'We would respectfully submit that the hundreds of new or increased taxes and fees Maryland's families and businesses have had to absorb over the last several years have had a more significant and immediate impact on every Marylander.' None of the bills objected to in the letter are among the 193 set to be signed during a noon ceremony Tuesday. Moore has until May 27 to decide to sign, veto or allow bills to become law without his signature. 'As Gov. Moore reviews the hundreds of bills put forward this session, he will continue to work with the state legislature, local leaders, and all partners involved to ensure that we are signing legislation that will make Maryland safer, more affordable, more competitive, and the state that serves,' a Moore spokesperson said in an email. Included on the Republican list are four bills: Senate Bills 250 and 425, which increase Maryland Department of Environment fees, and allow the state to collect fees on coal combustion byproducts from former coal plant operators, respectively; and House Bills 719 and 796, which raise boat title, license and other fees, and increase the cost to file a foreclosure action, respectively. Some fees of the Department of the Environment fees in SB 250 have not been increased since the 1990s. Combined, all four bills are projected to bring in tens of millions in additional revenues. Much of that money is earmarked for specific programs such as the clean air and private dam restoration funds. The caucus, in its letter, noted a budget containing 'numerous taxes and fees, representing the largest tax increase in ' state history in addition to the fees contained in the four bills. The budget passed this year by the General Assembly includes roughly $1.6 billion in tax and fee increases. That package includes a new 3% sales tax on data and IT services. 'Our citizens need a break from the state government's relentless attack on their wallets,' the caucus wrote in its letter.
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Louisiana lawmakers might shield campaign spending on constitutional amendments, tax proposals
Voters talk outside a polling place at Edward Hynes Charter School in New Orleans' Lakeview neighborhood on Nov. 8, 2022. (Greg LaRose/Louisiana Illuminator) Louisiana lawmakers might eliminate requirements that political donations and spending on constitutional amendments, tax millages and other election propositions be made available to the public. The change would result in voters knowing less about who is working to pass or defeat ballot measures they are asked to consider. Rep. Mark Wright, R- Covington, chairman of the House Republican Caucus, has sponsored House Bill 596. It would make dozens of changes to Louisiana campaign finance reporting laws, including one to end finance reporting requirements for a 'proposition or question to be submitted to the voters.' Should his bill pass, campaign contributions and political spending in an election that doesn't involve a candidate would not have to be made public. The change would apply to proposed state constitutional amendments, property tax measures, local government charter changes and gambling legalization initiatives, among other referenda. The fundraising and spending for Gov. Jeff Landry's failed constitutional amendments on taxes, spending and criminal justice would have been kept secret if these law changes had been in place. Political advertising buys for a controversial ballot measure that established the city of St. George in East Baton Rouge Parish also would have been unknown. Transparency about campaign spending on property tax hikes and renewals – such as one that failed Saturday for the East Baton Rouge District Attorney's Office and one that narrowly passed for the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office – also wouldn't be required anymore. Stephen Gelé, a private attorney who handles campaign finance and ethics reports for the governor, helped write the legislation. Onerous campaign finance reporting requirements for ballot measures outweigh the good they provide, he said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE 'The minimal benefits of mandating the reporting of spending on ballot measures – considering the difficulty in enforcement and lack of significant risk of corruption from such spending – is outweighed by the cost of the heavy burden imposed on the constitutional right to free speech by such mandates,' Gelé said in a written statement Sunday. Individuals and business interests might be less likely to contribute to a particular ballot measure campaign if they know their identity will be disclosed, according to Gelé. Allowing citizens to remain anonymous encourages more participation in the political process, he said. The reasons for mandating transparency on political contributions and spending on candidates also don't necessarily apply to ballot measures, Gelé said, because a ballot measure can't be corrupted or bribed like a candidate. Advocates for government transparency are concerned, however. Steven Procopio with the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, said his organization opposes the change and believes it would be a 'step back' for the state, which has been trying to ditch its reputation for sleazy politics. 'I not only think it is a bad idea, I can't believe the citizens won't be angry when they find out about it,' Procopio said in an interview Friday. Louisiana's campaign finance reporting laws for ballot measures are already weak and make it nearly impossible to figure out who is funding the campaigns surrounding those propositions. For example, the groups opposing and supporting the four constitutional amendments on the March 29 ballot spent more than $1 million combined. Who provided the money for the campaigns wasn't clear, however, because the requirements for donor disclosure for ballot propositions are easy to skirt. The two largest spenders on the March amendments did not reveal who was paying for their amendment campaign efforts. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE The Vera Institute of Justice spent at least $400,000 on a campaign to defeat Amendment 3, which would have made it easier to send more minors to adult prisons. Based in New York City, Vera took in more than $260 million over the past two years but is not required, as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit under the federal tax code, to disclose its contributors. Likewise, a 'social welfare' organization called Protect Louisiana Values that was set up to support Landry spent $300,000 to back Amendment 2, which would have made dozens of tax and budget changes to the Louisiana Constitution. It is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit – sometimes referred to as a 'dark money' political organization by critics – and also doesn't have to reveal its donors. Should Wright's legislation pass, not only would donors for proposition campaigns no longer be disclosed, but the amount of money being spent and the campaign vendors being paid for advertising and other organization efforts also wouldn't be known. Landry is pushing for the proposal right after he spent weeks trying to blame billionaire philanthropist George Soros for the March amendments' failure. The governor has repeatedly claimed Soros funded the opposition campaign, though Landry hasn't provided evidence to support the assertion. Public finance records are also too vague to determine whether Soros was involved. A Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor, Soros is a major donor to liberal causes and has served as a bogeyman for conservatives for years. He never claimed to be involved in the Louisiana election, though he openly spent millions on a Wisconsin Supreme Court race that took place just a few days later in April. 'There was a lot of misinformation and straight-up lies about where the money for the Amendment 3 campaign came from,' Sarah Omojola with the Vera Institute said. 'So I find it interesting that this [bill] is coming forward now.' Republican leaders in the Legislature are attempting to put another proposal to change the state's tax and budget structure back on the ballot within the next year. In its new iteration, it consists of multiple constitutional amendments. Should Wright's legislation pass, the campaign operations surrounding those new constitutional amendments would be largely a secret. His bill is expected to come up for an initial vote Wednesday in the Louisiana House and Governmental Affairs Committee.
