Ethics Commission offers one ‘yes' and one ‘no' on legislative conflicts of interest
The state ethics panel has given the OK for one state representative to vote on the fiscal 2026 budget, but put the kibosh on another lawmaker's ability to advocate for his landlord's development plans.
The pair of advisory opinions issued by the Rhode Island Ethics Commission on Tuesday address inquiries regarding potential personal or professional conflicts by state legislators.
Rep. Arthur Corvese, a North Providence Democrat, sought the commission's opinion regarding his son-in-law's job with Meta. Gov. Dan McKee as part of his fiscal 2026 budget has proposed taxing global companies on the income they derive from digital advertisements in Rhode Island, which directly relates to Corvese's son-in-law's job as Meta policy director. Corvese already pledged in his written submission to recuse himself from any committee hearings at which his son-in-law, or one of his supervisees, testifies. But Corvese was unsure whether he could vote on the fiscal 2026 budget as a whole, should the final version include the proposed 10% digital advertising tax. The commission's opinion gives Corvese permission to vote on the budget as a whole — though not individual line items pertaining to the tax — noting that Meta and his son-in-lawr's financial standing is unchanged by the state's tax proposal.
However, the commission did not give a similar rubber stamp to another state representative's inquiry regarding his business landlord's development plans.
In a separate advisory opinion, the commission concluded that Rep. Paul Santucci, a Smithfield Republican, could not comment on or vote on any legislation related to his company landlord's plans to develop a 300-acre industrial park in his district because the pair are business associates. No legislation regarding the planned development has been introduced, so the question for now remains hypothetical. Should a bill be submitted, Santucci should recuse himself from the vote or seek further input from the commission.
Neither Corvese nor Santucci immediately returned inquiries for comment on Thursday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Kamala Harris' latest Stephen Colbert flop shows exactly what's wrong with both of them
Kamala Harris' visit Thursday to Stephen Colbert's 'Late Show' was a fine reminder of why both of them are failures. Mind you, this marked Harris' eighth Late Show appearance — one more illustration of the futility of doing the same thing over and over and somehow expecting different results. What made her think this would help promote her new book? Advertisement The marquee moment was her inability to say who's leading the Democratic Party just now — which was actually simple honesty, since neither Dems nor Republicans have clear leaders these days unless it's a sitting president. But she couldn't explain that simple truth, nor did Colbert show any sign of getting it as he pushed for an answer. Her incoherence was part of another classic Kam performance, full of word salads and non-answers. Advertisement So why did Colbert even bring her on a supposed comedy show? Because he's followed most of the late-night crew down the 'we need to promote liberal politics' toilet, of course — hosting 176 Dem politicians and one Republican since 2022, and hewing one side of the aisle every minute in between. That formula earned him cancellation and may well take out all his peers. It's another puzzle of modern life that so much of the entertainment industry somehow forgot that sanctimoniousness (political or otherwise) is the enemy of humor.
Politico
6 minutes ago
- Politico
The Supreme Court just dropped a hint about its next big Voting Rights Act case
The order came in a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, which contains two majority-Black districts out of the state's six House seats. The court heard arguments in the case in March and had been expected to rule by June. But on June 27, the justices punted the case into their next term and ordered that it be reargued. Now, Friday's order loosely sketches the terrain on which the justices want further arguments: the claim that the longstanding practice of drawing majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Acts may be unconstitutional because of its focus on race in drawing district lines. The voters challenging Louisiana's map had already advanced that constitutional claim in the case, but the justices' call for further briefing on the issue suggests they want to consider the claim more fully. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark law passed during the civil rights era, generally prohibits race-based discrimination in voting laws and practices. In redistricting, the law is used to protect against racial gerrymandering that would unfairly dilute the voting power of racial and ethnic minority voters. States across the country routinely seek to comply with Section 2 by drawing congressional districts where minority voters can elect their chosen candidates. Louisiana's previous map contained only one majority-Black district, even though Black residents make up about a third of the state's population. After a court struck down that map for likely violating the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the power of Black voters, the state's Republican-controlled legislature drew the new map with two majority-Black districts. A group of voters — who self-identified as non-Black — challenged the new map. That's the case now before the Supreme Court. A ruling overturning the current map could result in Republicans picking up an additional congressional seat in Louisiana. The state's two majority-Black districts are both represented by Democrats, while the other four districts are represented by Republicans.
New York Post
35 minutes ago
- New York Post
Biden allies prepared to unload ‘Palinesque' stories about Kamala Harris if she discusses his cognitive decline: report
Joe Biden's allies are prepared to 'escalate' and reveal unflattering stories about Kamala Harris should the former vice president decide to talk about the former president's cognitive decline, according to a veteran political journalist. The stories about Harris' tenure as Biden's No. 2 are 'Palinesque,' 2WAY's Mark Halperin said Friday, a reference to former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. 'I will tell you, and this has never been reported, barely at all: if the Biden people decide that Kamala is coming after Joe Biden, wait till you hear the 'Palinesque' stories about how much they tried to help her be prepared to be vice president and be in a position to run. And how much they decided, 'Not happening. She's not up to this,'' Halperin said on 'The Morning Meeting' show. 3 Earlier this week, Harris announced that she would not be running for governor in California. X/Kamala Harris In the aftermath of late Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) loss to former President Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, leaks from campaign staffers suggested that Palin, McCain's running mate, was woefully unprepared for the job. In one infamous report, campaign staffers claimed that Palin did not know Africa was a continent and that she could not name the three countries that formed the North American Free Trade Agreement – the United States, Canada and Mexico. 'If the Biden people feel threatened, you will hear stories about Kamala Harris as vice president that will not make her look good,' Halperin said. 'So there's a closeness to the couples,' he added. 'It's not like they're at war currently, but I'm telling you, if Joe Biden feels threatened, if his people feel threatened by her, this is gonna escalate in a big way.' Halperin argued that Harris would have a 'hard time defending against the stories if that dam bursts.' Journalists Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper detail some of the frustrations Biden loyalists had with the VP in their recent book, 'Original Sin.' In the book, Harris was described as a 'regular headache' for the White House, according to Biden people. 'She often shied away from politically tough assignments when Biden had accepted such assignments as vice president,' the authors write. 'She even turned down seemingly simple asks, such as headlining DC's Gridiron Club dinner.' 'Many on the Biden team felt that Harris didn't put in the work and was also just not a very nice person,' according to the book. 'Several quietly expressed buyer's remorse: They should have picked [Michigan Gov. Gretchen] Whitmer' as Biden's running mate in 2020. 3 Biden's cognitive decline and use of autopen in the White House is being scrutinized by Republicans. REUTERS 3 Halperin said the stories Biden's team has about Harris are 'Palinesque.' 2WAY/YouTube Halperin argued that Biden's people 'were extraordinary in trying to help her do the job of vice president.' 'They gave her every opportunity. And they did — they found in some instances that she had some issues.' The House Oversight Committee has brought in several former top Biden White House aides to testify on the former president's mental decline and his staff's use of autopen to sign official documents. It's unclear if the GOP-led committee plans to ask or subpoena Harris for testimony.
