Louisiana lawmakers put some limits back in place on gifts to public officials
Louisiana lawmakers are no longer looking to broadly lift restrictions on gifts to elected officials and public employees while doing their jobs, but they appear intent on discouraging ethics investigations. Rep. Beau Beaullieu, R-Iberia, removed language from House Bill 674 that would have allowed public servants to receive $200 worth of gifts annually. This would have applied to all local and state government employees, from a local police officer to the governor.
Instead, Beaullieu has rewritten the legislation to keep a portion of a current limitation on government worker gifts in place. Now, gifts that aren't food would be mostly restricted to $200 worth of flowers or a charitable donation to express sympathy for a family death. New allowances for 'seasonal' food and beverages remain in the legislation, however. Under current law, most public officials are not supposed to receive food and drink as gifts unless it's at a party or reception.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Under existing rules, they have to consume the food in person at the event where it is given. The edible gift can cost no more than $79 per person, a cutoff the Louisiana Board of Ethics adjusts every year based on the Consumer Price Index. Beaullieu's updated proposal would allow elected leaders and public employees to take seasonal or holiday foods as gifts for a religious or state holiday, even outside of a party or reception. The cap on food gifts would also be $79 per person per holiday or whatever new price the ethics board adopts in future years.
Besides the gift policy changes, Beaullieu's bill contains several ethics law modifications that would make it much harder for the state ethics board to investigate and charge people with misconduct. The ethics board oversees enforcement of campaign finance laws and the state ethics code for public employees, elected officials and lobbyists. Anyone from a public school teacher to the governor can be subject of one of its investigations. The adjustments Beaullieu proposes would require more members of the ethics board to vote in favor of pursuing an investigation and give the board far less time to decide whether a person should be charged with ethical wrongdoing. People accused of ethics violations would also have more ability to push back on the allegations under Beaullieu's bill.
If the legislation were to pass, the new standards that would have to be met in order for the ethics board to launch an investigation would be very difficult to achieve. For example, the ethics board would have to be confident that wrongdoing had occurred in order to sign off on any preliminary probe into the alleged misconduct. Ethics Administrator David Bordelon said earlier this month the process Beaullieu seeks would 'skew' the process in favor of the public servant accused of wrongdoing. He also took issue with a new restriction Beaullieu proposed Tuesday on ethical investigations and charges. The state representative added language to his bill prohibiting the ethics board from launching an investigation based on information it received through an advisory opinion request.
The board is frequently asked to explain how ethics laws apply in specific situations through advisory opinions. It issues at least a few of these public letters monthly providing feedback.
'If someone submits an advisory opinion request that indicates a violation has already occurred, it should be within the board's prerogative to initiate an investigation of that,' Bordelon told senators at a committee hearing Tuesday.
Beaullieu said he is trying to overhaul state ethics investigations because many elected officials feel the board has been too aggressive when pursuing allegations.
The state's preeminent state government watchdog, the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, has come out strongly against the bill. 'This is designed to make sure we don't have ethics investigations,' Steven Procopio, the organization's president, said of the proposed changes.
The legislation is backed by Gov. Jeff Landry, who has had several personal conflicts with the ethics board over his nine years in statewide office.
In 2023, the board charged Landry in 2023 with the ethics violation of failing to disclose flights he took on a political donor's private plane to Hawaii for an attorneys general conference. That dispute is ongoing because the governor and board members have not reached an agreement on what Landry's punishment for the violation should be.
Stephen Gelé, the attorney representing Landry in this ethics dispute, also helped write Beaullieu's legislation to overhaul the state's ethics laws.
The Louisiana Senate and Governmental Affairs Committee approved the bill Tuesday with no objections. An earlier version of the proposal also passed the Louisiana House unanimously, but both the Senate and the House will have to approve the amended version before it can become law.
It must pass by the Louisiana Legislature's session adjournment June 12.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Why tariffs may not be a big deal after all
Key Points: Tariffs initially caused market anxiety and a 19% S&P 500 decline from February to April.A feared spike in inflation from tariffs hasn't materialized yet. Companies have largely managed tariffs by negotiating lower prices, absorbing costs, or modest price increases, keeping overall inflation mostly in have rebounded as the tariff impact proved less severe than expected. Better-than-forecast outcomes and ongoing trade deals have lifted the S&P 500 to an all-time estimated tariff duties are not being collected because of enforcement complexity. This, along with over 50% of imports not being subject to tariffs, has lessened the drag on the economy. It wasn't that long ago that President Donald's Trump's tariff strategy kicked up a hornet's next of debate. Those favoring tariffs, which are taxes on imports, argue that they are the best way to kick-start U.S. manufacturing. Opponents believe tariffs are inflationary, sparking higher prices that can derail the U.S. economy, risking recession. The truth may wind up landing somewhere in the middle. Tariffs can slow an economy, particularly if they increase quickly and significantly, like what President Trump originally proposed this spring. However, billionaire fund manager Ken Fisher, founder of Fisher Investments, points out that in the U.S., tariffs' impact may be more muted than expected. Image source:Legendary fund manager Paul Tudor Jones equated the originally proposed tariffs as the biggest new tax since the 1960s. In February, President Trump enacted 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. He also implemented a 25% tariff on autos, a 10% tariff on all imports, and after much wrangling, a 30% tariff on China. Related: Billionaire fund manager explains why so many missed the stock market rally The end result of those tariffs is that the average effective tariff rate currently is 20.2%, the highest since 1911, according to the Yale Budget Lab. JPMorgan Chase calculates the effective tariff rate was 2.3% in 2024, and is about 17% currently. Either way, a big bump in import taxes led many to worry that U.S. companies would be forced to pass along higher-than-normal price increases, causing inflation to spike and household and business spending to fall. That concern contributed heavily to the S&P 500's 19% tumble from all-time highs in February to the low in April. While risk remains that companies will see revenue growth and earnings slow because of the impact of tariffs, so far, inflation remains manageable. The Consumer Price Index for June showed headline inflation of 2.7%, up from 2.4% in May, but below the 3% inflation rate registered in January. It appears as of now that companies are successfully navigating the tariff hit, mostly through a combination of negotiating lower prices with exporters, absorbing some of the costs, and more modest price increases. More Tariffs: Luxury carmakers have a more aggressive tariff battle planTop 6 cars, SUVs, & trucks that may avoid tariffs, Consumer Reports saysAmazon's quiet pricing twist on tariffs stuns shoppersLevi's shares plan to beat tariffs, keep holiday prices down Of course, some industries - such as autos, appliances, apparel, and furniture - are hit harder by tariffs. Still, overall, inflation has yet to reach levels suggesting a major retrenchment in spending that could further weaken the economy. The better-than-hoped outcome, coupled with optimism that ongoing trade deals, such as the one recently reached with Japan, which lowered tariffs to 15% from 25%, would result in lower tariffs than initially feared, has helped the stock market recover all of its losses since February. The S&P 500 closed on July 26 at an all-time high. Ken Fisher founded Fisher Investments, a money manager with $332 billion in assets under management, in 1979. Over his 45-plus year career, Fisher has seen a lot of good and bad economies and markets. Related: Another automaker is forced to shift strategy due to tariffs He's not a fan of tariffs, saying previously that they historically hurt the country imposing them more than the country they've been imposed upon. Still, he also points out that the widespread threat associated with a tariff-driven economic recession may not be as big as some make it out to be. "Tariff terror abounds, but 'tariffied' investors miss what markets don't," wrote Fisher on X. "While universal tariffs are foolish and a real economic negative, their real world bite is often muted." Fisher had previously forecast that enforcing tariffs would be incredibly difficult, and that we'd see significant difficulty in collecting them. He also opined that high tariffs would likely cause the black-market import business to soar. He appears to be right. "Through June, roughly 39% of estimated tariffs duties were actually collected - far less than many feared - owing to tariff enforcement's complexity," said Fisher. "Markets move on the gap between reality and expectations, and it's always bullish when reality settles in better than overly dour expectations." Fisher also pointed out that over 50% of imports aren't subject to tariffs. This isn't to say that the U.S. economy would be better off without tariffs in terms of growth, but only that the drag on the economy may not be as bad as originally feared. According to Yale Budget Lab, current tariffs are reducing U.S. GDP this year by about 0.8%. In short, the stock market priced in a worst-case outcome from tariffs, providing plenty of room for positive surprises. Anything less than terrible can be viewed as a win that may lift analysts expectations for revenue and profit growth - the lifeblood of stock market returns. Related: Legendary fund manager has blunt message on 'Big Beautiful Bill' The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Disapproval Rating Rises To New High
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Donald Trump's disapproval rating has climbed to its highest level since the start of his second term, according to new polling data. The most recent Wall Street Journal/ Fabrizio, Lee and Associates poll shows that Trump's disapproval rating has hit 52 percent, up from 51 percent in March, while his approval rating has remained the same at 46 percent. The survey was conducted between July 18-21 among 1,000 registered voters. In other polls conducted before the beginning of Trump's second term, his disapproval rating ranged from 46 to 51 percent. Meanwhile, Trump's personal favorability rating declined slightly, from 47 percent in March to 45 percent in July, and a majority of voters—52 percent—continue to view him unfavorably. With Trump's popularity declining, voter sentiment remains unsettled—especially on the economy, with most voters continuing to feel the financial strain of inflation and rejecting key elements of Trump's economic policy. This comes as inflation has begun to rise again, with the rate of annual price increases hitting 2.7 percent in June, up from 2.4 percent the previous month, according to the Consumer Price Index. At the same time, the president's economic approval rating remains stuck at 44 percent, unchanged since March. Disapproval has edged up slightly, from 52 percent to 53 percent. President Donald Trump departs following a visit to the Federal Reserve, Thursday, July 24, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump departs following a visit to the Federal Reserve, Thursday, July 24, 2025, in Washington. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Signs of Recovery, But Financial Pressure Persists Nonetheless, public assessments of the economy have brightened. In July, 47 percent of Americans described the economy as strong—up from 36 percent in March. The share who called it weak fell from 63 percent to 51 percent. Perceptions of momentum have shifted too: 38 percent now say the economy is getting better, compared to just 26 percent in March, while fewer believe it's getting worse (46 percent, down from 52 percent). But those gains haven't translated into personal relief. A consistent 57 to 58 percent of voters say inflation and the cost of living are causing at least minor financial strain. Another 31 percent say it's not currently a problem, but could become one if prices rise further. Just 11 percent in July said it isn't a concern at all. Beyond inflation, Trump faces growing criticism over his tariff policies. Just 40 percent of voters approve of his approach to tariffs, while 57 percent disapprove. Opposition is widespread: 56 percent oppose tariffs on Mexico, and 53 percent reject tariffs on the European Union. The skepticism runs deeper than specific policies. Nearly half of voters (48 percent) say Trump's economic approach will cause more harm than good, and a majority (52 percent) believe he is not looking out for the middle class. Immigration Agenda Backfires The poll also shows that Trump's aggressive immigration policies may be undermining his own support. According to the poll, his approval on the issue stands at 48 percent, while 51 percent disapprove, giving him a net approval rating of -3 points. That is despite a historic drop in illegal border crossings in June—largely attributed to his expanded deportation efforts and new detention measures. But reports of aggressive enforcement tactics, mass raids, and expanded ICE detention facilities—including temporary camps dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz"—have sparked unease even among voters. According to the poll, a majority—51 percent—say his efforts to deport undocumented immigrants have gone too far. But when asked specifically about illegal immigration, views were slightly more favorable: 51 percent approve of how he's handled it, compared to 49 percent who disapprove. National Mood Still Downbeat Amid concerns about the economy and immigration, most Americans remain pessimistic about the country's trajectory. In July, just 39 percent said the U.S. is headed in the right direction, while 55 percent said it's on the wrong track—slightly worse than the 41/51 split seen in March. Meanwhile, Trump has seen his approval ratings dip to a second-term low nationwide. Newsweek's approval tracker currently places Trump at a net minus 10 rating, with 43 percent of Americans approving and 53 percent disapproving. It is one of his lowest net approval scores in recent weeks. The most recent Marquette University survey shows Trump at 45 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval, a net rating of -10, down two points from -8 in May. It is the lowest rating Marquette has recorded for Trump during his second term. Similarly, Navigator Research found his approval at 42 percent, with 54 percent disapproving, marking a net approval rating of -12—a four-point drop from June and also his worst rating from Navigator since returning to office. More dramatic declines appear in Gallup's latest polling, which shows Trump with just 37 percent approval and 58 percent disapproval—a net rating of -21, down from -17 last month. The Bullfinch Group also reports weakening support, with Trump now at 41 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval, a net rating of -14, down slightly from -13 in June.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump just floated a tax idea that would hugely benefit California homeowners
President Donald Trump just floated an idea that could benefit more homeowners in California than in any other state: eliminating the capital gains tax on the sale of a primary home. Under current law, homeowners who sell their primary home pay nothing on their first $250,000 (single filers) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) in profits. Anything over that is taxed as a capital gain. Those limits have not changed since the law that created them took effect in May 1997. Had they increased along with the Consumer Price Index, they would be double that now. California has, by far, more homes exceeding the current limits than any other state. Between 2017 and 2023, California accounted for 37% of all sales nationwide that had gross capital gains exceeding $500,000, even though it made up only 10% of all home sales, according to a study last year by Cotality. Rather than sell and pay capital gains tax – which could be as much as 33% in federal and California taxes combined – many long-term homeowners plan to stay put until they die, even if their home no longer suits them. Upon their death, all of the appreciation that occurred during their lifetime will be tax-free, thanks to a tax benefit known as the 'step-up in basis." Real estate agents say this 'lock-in' effect is slowing home sales and driving up prices in high-cost markets. 'We have had the most appreciation in the nation coupled with the highest capital gains rate in the nation when you count state and federal,' said Silicon Valley Realtor Ken DeLeon. 'I have a client, he has Alzheimer's, he should really be in a care home, but he has a highly appreciated home and he's choosing not to sell.' He noted that In Santa Clara County, single-family home sales fell fairly steadily from 24,174 in 2001 to 10,102 in 2024. In San Mateo County, they fell from 8,878 to 4,471, DeLeon said. About two weeks ago, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., introduced a bill, the No Tax on Home Sales Act, that would eliminate capital gains taxes on primary home sales. During a press conference Tuesday, Trump was asked, 'How important is it we have no tax on home sales, capital gains to unleash the housing market in this country?' His response: 'Well, we're thinking about that. But it would also unleash it just by lowering the interest rates.' Congress would have to approve any change or elimination of the capital gains tax on homes. If it did, the California Legislature would have to decide whether or not to conform to the new federal law for state taxes. Most federal legislators from California contacted for this article – including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff and Rep. Nancy Pelosi – did not respond or declined to comment on Trump's idea until he puts forth a proposal. But a couple did acknowledge the need for change. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, said via email that there are areas of the state and nation where rising property values 'are making the capital gains tax a barrier for many empty nesters and retirees seeking to sell their homes or downsize. This has worsened California's housing crisis, leaving too many houses off the market … As Ranking Member of the (House) Tax Subcommittee, I support solutions that would address these issues, including raising the current exemption for the capital gains tax." Considering how many tax breaks Congress just granted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it's not clear how much support there is for legislation that would mainly benefit wealthy homeowners. Double the exemption? A more modest bill, the ' More Homes on the Market Act,' would double the existing exemptions to $500,000 for singles and $1 million for couples and index them to inflation. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Santa Cruz, reintroduced the bill in February after it died in 2023, despite having broad bipartisan support. In an emailed statement, Panetta said, 'It's a good thing that the President is finally acknowledging the seriousness of the affordable housing issue…' and that he is 'willing to work with anyone on solutions for my constituents…especially when it comes to our bipartisan bill.' Asked whether he favors eliminating the capital gains tax on homes, his office said Panetta would first have to review any such legislation and the analysis. Doubling the exemption would wipe out the tax for most homeowners, but 'in the Bay Area and California, you would need to quadruple it, to $2 million,' DeLeon said. Since May 1997, the median price of a single-family home nationwide has risen by almost 250% to $441,500, according to National Association of Realtors data. But in California, it shot up 386% to almost $900,000, and in San Francisco County, it soared about 500% to $1.75 million, based on California Association of Realtors data. The old rules Freeing up inventory was also one of the main reasons behind the tax law change in 1997. Under the old law, when sellers made a profit on their primary residence, the tax was deferred (not forgiven) if they purchased a replacement home within a specified time and the new house cost at least as much as the sales price on the old home. A homeowner could continue rolling the untaxed profit from one house to another, as long as they kept buying more expensive homes. If and when they sold a home, all of the accumulated untaxed gains would become taxable. If they left it to their heirs, the gains up until the owner's death generally would escape capital gains tax because of the step-up in basis. The old law also let people 55 or older sell their primary home and exclude up to $125,000 (married or single) in accumulated profits, but only once in a lifetime. As a result, homeowners had to keep meticulous recordkeeping from every house they owned. Some lawmakers and academics believed the law created distortions in the market, such as discouraging homeowners from downsizing, moving into rental housing or from higher-cost to lower-cost markets as their circumstances changed. The new rules The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was intended to reduce these distortions, stimulate sales, simplify recordkeeping and eliminate capital gains taxes for almost all homeowners. It exempted the first $250,000/$500,000 in profits from capital gains tax, whether or not the seller bought a new house. Profit is what's left after you subtract what you paid for the house and eligible improvements from your sales price minus commissions and other selling expenses. Taxpayers with gains under the limits generally do not have to report the sale on their tax return. Any profit over the exemption is taxed as a capital gain. The federal rate on long-term capital gains is 0%, 15% or 20% depending on income. That's lower than the rate on 'ordinary income,' such as from a job or self-employment. A large taxable gain from the sale of a home could also trigger an additional 3.8% 'net investment income tax.' A bulge in income can also force some seniors to pay substantially more for Medicare for one year. California also excludes the first $250,000/$500,000 from the sale of a primary home, but it taxes capital gains just like ordinary income, at rates up to 13.3%. Homeowners can use this exemption as often as every two years, as long as each home has been their primary residence for at least two out of five years before the sale. What happened after 1997? Initially, the new law did eliminate tax for the vast majority of homeowners, but as home prices soared, so did the number who owed tax. Between 2000 and 2003 – a few years after the rule change – only about 38,000 home sales per year nationwide, or 1.3% of all existing home sales, had gross capital gains (excluding homeowner improvements) that exceeded $500,000, according to Cotality. By the end of 2023, almost 230,000 homes or 7.9% of all home sales nationwide – and almost 29% in California – were over the limit. A study commissioned by the National Association of Realtors found that 34% of homeowners today could already exceed $250,000 in capital gains and 10% have potential gains above $500,000. Those numbers could be 56% and 23%, respectively, by 2030 and nearly 70% and 38% by 2035. 'These outdated (exemption) thresholds are already distorting the housing market and locking up inventory, and it is getting worse every year,' the association wrote. What research says Several academic studies found that the tax law change in 1997 did increase housing turnover, and may have contributed to the sharp runup in home prices from the early 2000s until 2008, when the bubble burst. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 'played a significant role in facilitating the boom in the residential real estate market that began shortly after its enactment,' Pete H. Oppenheimer, then a professor at the University of North Georgia, wrote in a 2014 paper. It created an opportunity for homeowners to receive tax free income when they resold their principal residences, which made homeownership more attractive and caused the real estate market to 'expand in volume and price,' he added. It also helped 'real estate investors and professionals to achieve tax free income … by converting rental property into a personal residence.' A Federal Reserve study published in 2008 concluded that the 1997 Act 'reversed the lock-in effect of capital gains taxes on houses with low and moderate capital gains.' However, it 'may have generated an unintended lock-in effect on houses with capital gains over the maximum exclusion amount.' Its author Hui Shan found that the short-term effect was 'much larger' than the long-term effect. A 2011 paper by Andrea Heuson and Gary Painter also found that housing turnover 'increased significantly' after 1997. 'The surprising result is how broad based the change in trading behavior is, appearing across all age ranges and impacting both trading up and trading down,' they wrote. Based on his past research, Painter predicted that eliminating the tax on home sales would increase sales. When he left his job at the University of Southern California to teach at the University of Cincinnati, Painter kept his home near Long Beach and rented it out because he didn't want to pay capital gains tax, but also in case he wanted to return to California one day. It's not just capital gains tax Capital gains are not the only culprit locking up inventory. Many homeowners with mortgages around 3% are reluctant to move, now that rates are hovering around 6% to 7%. That is the 'big 1,000-pound gorilla that has reduced mobility," Painter said. And in California, many sellers would face a big increase in their property tax assessment if they sold a long-held home and bought another. Proposition 19, passed by voters in 2020, was supposed to boost inventory by making it easier for people 55 or older to transfer their assessment from their current home to a new one, thus avoiding or reducing a property-tax increase. It also made it harder for children to keep a parent's low property tax base on an inherited home. It appears that more Bay Area seniors did move after Prop. 19 took effect, at least in the first few years. But results varied by county and the effects wore off over time. In Contra Costa, requests by seniors for Prop. 19 transfers went from around 200 per year before 2020 to about 1,000 a year after two years, but since then has tapered off to around 600 a year, said Gus Kramer, the county's assessor. In Santa Clara County, Prop. 19 'has been a lot less successful than anticipated. The biggest negative by far is capital gains,' DeLeon said. Unintended consequences If Congress eliminated capital gains tax on homes, Painter believes more people would move out of California. For people contemplating a move, losing their low property-tax base 'is not an issue, but (capital gains) taxes are. This would be an opportunity to cash in on their equity,' he said. And instead of making homes more affordable, it could increase prices. 'More generous tax treatment of homes could bid up home prices on the demand side, exacerbating concerns about housing affordability,' Joseph Rosenberg , a senior fellow with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said via email. San Francisco Chief Economist Ted Egan concurs. 'The expectation of reduced taxes upon sale would likely result in modest upward pressure on housing prices in places, like San Francisco, where profits on home sales often exceed the threshold,' he said via email. 'This in turn would lead to a modest increase in property taxes.'
