A sweeping rewrite of Louisiana’s Campaign Finance Disclosure Act backed by Gov. Jeff Landry advanced to the House floor last week.
Though one prominent government watchdog isn’t sure what problem the bill is trying to solve, the author argues it addresses concerns that have cropped up “since campaign finance disclosure was created back in the (Bobby) Jindal days,” referring to the former governor.
“I don’t think I’ve come across any legislator or elected official who hasn’t had issues with the campaign finance filing and the way some things are done,” Rep. Mark Wright said in an interview after the hearing.
The legislation passed the House and Governmental Affairs Committee with a 10-4 vote. As explained by attorney Stephen Gelé, who represents Landry in a dispute with the Ethics Board over unreported flights on a donor’s private plane, the bill (among other things) would:
- Support “free speech and due process.”
- Mandate that interpretation of the Disclosure Act “be done in favor of respondents to complaints.”
- Define the criteria for when an investigation is warranted.
- Increase the monetary amounts for various reporting thresholds.
- Address contributions, expenditures and reporting for closed-party primary elections.
- Protect donor privacy for independent expenditures when the primary purpose is not electioneering.
- Address “evaluation of flights.”
- Prohibit contributions of citizens and companies of “foreign adversaries.”
- Require the Board of Ethics to report more data “so that this committee and the public has a better understanding of what’s going on at the Board of Ethics regarding campaign finance.”
The bill, HB693, creates definitions and regulations for different types of political action committees, which is a wonky but crucial aspect of the bill for political professionals. Committees would be divided into traditional PACs, campaign committees, independent expenditure PACs and leadership committees.
There has been a lot of confusion about that last category, Gelé says, which is defined in federal rules but doesn’t technically exist at the state level. Leadership PACs would be allowed to raise money for other candidates or officials and for officeholder expenses, but could not be used for your own election.
However, when raising money for your various PACs, you would only have to ask for one check. A written, public agreement would tell donors how the money is distributed.
Steven Procopio, president of the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, says he had not had a chance to read the entire substitute bill, but noted several aspects that he found problematic or at least curious.
For example, he says it codifies that Washington Mardi Gras expenses for politicians and their families are acceptable, but doesn’t define what counts as “Washington Mardi Gras.” As attendees know, there are lots of ancillary events that are not part of the official WMG.
He says the bill seems to say that churches, while still prohibited from endorsing specific candidates, could make expenditures on specific bills. That could create problems for their tax-exempt status.
“It basically says in the beginning of the bill, ‘Hey, you have to construe this in favor of the elected official or public official,’” Procopio says. “And at the back end, all the changes to the ethics committee say, ‘Hey, you can’t even have an investigation if you don’t think you’re going to find something before the investigation.’”
In summary, he says, “there’s not a single thing here that I can find that makes this more transparent to the public.”
In his interview, Wright acknowledged that using campaign funds to cover Washington Mardi Gras might give the impression of an elected official living “the high life.” But in reality, it’s a unique opportunity to connect with federal and local officials, he said.
The goal is to still have transparency while making the system easier to navigate, and not “go after people unless they have legitimately done something wrong,” he said.
[crowdsignal poll=15502931]
