by Julie O’Donoghue, Louisiana Illuminator
May 5, 2025

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.

“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.

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.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com.

The post Louisiana lawmakers might shield campaign spending on constitutional amendments, tax proposals appeared first on lailluminator.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

The content presents a factual account of a proposed bill in Louisiana that would eliminate requirements for disclosing campaign donations and spending related to ballot measures. The article presents arguments from both supporters and opponents of the bill, but the framing and the sources quoted, particularly Rep. Mark Wright and other conservative figures like Governor Jeff Landry, suggest a right-leaning perspective. The criticisms of transparency advocates and the inclusion of accusations about outside influence, such as the involvement of George Soros, indicate a slight leaning toward conservative views. However, the article remains relatively balanced, presenting both sides of the debate.