This article was written for Propublica’s local reporting network. Sign up for Dispatch to get stories in your inbox every week.
In Virginia this year, the Legislative Committee killed a bill that required lawmakers to disclose their codeholders. In New Mexico, the Democratic governor rejected a law that would have required lobbyists to be more transparent about whether they were trying to kill or hand over them. And in North Dakota, where voters, galvanized by a group called Badas Granmas for democracy, established the National Ethics Committee almost seven years ago, lawmakers continued the pattern of limiting the power of the panel.
At a time when government ethics boundaries are growing in Washington, D.C., hundreds of ethics-related bills were introduced in state legislatures this year, according to the bipartisan national conference of the state legislature’s ethics legislative database. Although the law’s enhanced ethics oversight was passed in several locations, Propublica analysis found lawmakers from multiple states targeted or blocked reforms designed to hold the public and those serving the elected officials accountable.
Democrats and Republican lawmakers have sought to push the bill to tighten gift restrictions, strengthen conflict of interest provisions and expand reporting requirements for financial disclosure. Again and again, the bill has gone off track.
With the help of a local newsroom, part of Propublica’s local reporting network, we looked into laws in 2025 that would undermine or block ethical regulations. We also spoke to experts about an overview of trends across the country. Their view: The threat to ethical standards and their enforcement is increasing.
“Donald Trump has led new cultural standards where ethics are no longer important,” says Craig Holman, a veteran government ethics specialist for Progressive Watchdog’s nonprofit public citizens. He pointed to the administration’s tariff contract with Vietnam after Trump’s private dinner with his top cryptocurrency buyers and green-lighting the Trump organization’s $1.5 billion golf resort complex. He then emailed the White House “is most clear” that it has “been making the most clear” that it has “been not yet had ethical policies for the first time in over 16 years.
Campaign Legal Centre, a nonprofit promoting ethics enforcement, has documented the risks and challenges faced particularly with national ethics committees across the country. These committees have a variety of duties, but often implement lobbying, campaign finance and conflict of interest laws. The Centre’s 2024 Threat Assessment Report warned that “people who want to undermine the ethics committee will be creative with the way they approach the attack, and all committees are ready for the fight.”
Delaney Marsco, the Center’s ethics director and lead author of the report, told Propovica:
Louisiana has passed legislation that significantly weakens ethical standards by making it difficult for state ethics committees to launch and conduct investigations. The law raised the bar when a board of 15 members could begin its own investigation from “believe in a reason” to “probable cause.” Additionally, if a board of directors needs to investigate a sworn complaint received, two-thirds of its members must agree that there may be a cause that may exist before opening the inquiry.
The law, which had overwhelmingly bipartisan support, targets the process that led to an ethics complaint against then-General Jeff Landry, now governor. Private lawyers defending him against these charges helped to create the law. The Ethics Committee dropped the charges last month as part of the settlement agreement.
Republican Rep. Beau Beau Beaulieu said a board’s power check would be required to respond to enthusiastic enforcement actions.
But more often, legislators stood in ways of ethical reform.
In South Carolina, the incredible state Capitol corruption investigation of the 2010s led to the passing of several legislative leaders and many ethical reforms. “It’s been radio silent ever since,” Sen. Sean Bennett, a Summerville Republican who chairs the Chamber of Commerce’s ethics committee, told the mail and the Courier. “There have been attempts to do things, but they don’t get a lot of traction.”
And this year, lawmakers there moved in other directions and introduced a bill that exempts government appointees from filing statements of economic interests. These statements include all disclosures from gifts received from individual sources of income or special benefits to property or business interests, as well as all the necessary items for all elected officials, most candidates in the office, and certain well-known public figures, such as committee members and school district employees.
Rep. Mike Burns, a conservative Republican from the town of Tigerville, the college town, argued the bill would help protect against fines.
But in an interview with the Post and Courier, Lake City Democrat Roger Kirby pushed him back. “What is transparency the goal, is that? Why are we trying to move away from it?”
South Carolina has a two-year session and the bill remains stagnant on the committee.
And in another example of the law that sought to undermine reform, then-Oregon Senate Republican leader Daniel Bonham made an effort to be hung up, disbanding the state’s ethics committee and introducing measures that allowed state agencies to police themselves. This measure did not leave the committee. Bonham admitted in an interview with Oregon Public Radio. Still, Bonham said he believes the Ethics Committee is “harmless” and its effectiveness and purpose deserves “robust public discussion.”
Even as some lawmakers across the country tried to promote ethical reform, their efforts were largely blocked.
Virginia: Office holders were required to disclose digital assets specifically defined as cryptocurrency for national ethics submissions. This disclosure was mandatory for employees or elected officials who were requested to submit statements of economic interest to the Virginia Conflicts of Interest and Ethics Advisory Committee. Among the subjects are governors, cabinet members, general assembly members, state officers and employees, judges and constitutional officers. Sponsors of the bill argued that in the absence of public disclosure, Virginia legislators, cabinet officials and judges who own digital currency could have potential conflicts of interest in creating new laws and regulating the industry. However, the bill failed amid bipartisan opposition. Several lawmakers questioned whether it would open the door to further disclosure requirements. Texas: Several state lawmakers have put forward laws to combat misinformation and misinformation in political ads and to clarify who is paying for ads that contain changed images and audio. The law followed the 2024 primary campaign in which former Republican Texas Senator Dade Phelan faced a barrage of false and misleading advertising. Phelan’s face featured Phelan’s face layered over the face of our House Democrat leader Hakeum Jeffries, who was shown to embrace former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The relevant bills have failed in both the House and Senate, where opponents dismissed the argument that voters struggle to determine facts from misinformation. Conservative critics of the measure cited concerns about freedom of speech, among other things. North Dakota: Lawmakers have halted efforts to provide more power and resources to the state’s ethics committee. The committee sought more freedom in how and when the investigation was conducted, including the ability to conduct an investigation even when no formal complaints were filed. Commission staff said the requirement for formal complaints discourages some people from moving forward. But opposing lawmakers said most Republicans lacked sufficient checks and balance on the committee’s power, and they opposed strong opposition from the governor and attorney general. New Mexico: Democrats ran twice with transparency. The first lobbyists were required to disclose their invoices and their positions for those invoices within 48 hours of starting their lobbying or changing positions. The law was passed but was rejected by the Democratic governor. He said the bill lacked clarity and the reporting window was too restrictive. Another ethics bill aims to prevent nonprofits from exploiting independent political spending in the Campaign Finance Act of 2019. The bill was eventually killed under pressure from nonprofits who feared its effectiveness. Connecticut: The National Ethics Office has sought to expand its profit dispute clause to prevent government officials and employees from taking official measures such as awarding contracts. The bill would also require civil servants to reject themselves if they had the “actual knowledge” that the companies they or their spouse would benefit from. The law has been suspended after repeated practice over the past decade and a half. Now, Peter Lewandowsky, executive director of the office, said the challenges have been brought from those who insisted on demanding lawmakers be rejected because the vote could benefit the private employer of their spouse. Maine: The bill died in a bill that would have required state legislators to disclose donations made to organisations by lawmakers or fellow lobbyists on behalf of lawmakers. Supporters, including sponsors of Republican Sen. David Hagan, said the bill would increase transparency and allow the public to determine how common practices are. Critics called it unrealistic and questioned its need. The bill “adds a level of complexity that is not guaranteed by actions that anyone could specifically cite,” said Sen. Jill Duson, a Democrat who voted against it.
However, Propublica’s analysis found both red and blue states in several states that successfully enacted reforms. For example, Maine is bipartisan pushing for a one-year waiting period for legislative staff who have gained overwhelming support from legislative staff who want to become lobbyists. The democratic legislative majority of Rhode Island and its Democratic governor have agreed to a ban on bidding rigging for state contracts. And in Oklahoma, lawmakers reversed the governor’s veto and tried to make self-execution by government officials a felony. In his veto message, the governor said the law “creates excessive bureaucracy with little meaningful impact.”
Painful inequality: The fight to get FEMA housing aid after Helen
In Washington, legislators have led to the law existing state requirements for lawmakers to report on their financial disclosures. The bill was framed as a cleanup measure, but critics pointed out that local officials were being held to much stricter standards. Local officials must disclose financial benefits of more than 1% when voting for a public contract and reject themselves.
“What if a real estate agent provides lawmakers with a 5% profit on property that could benefit from a state project, such as a highway interchange?” asked Sen. Jerry Pollette, a Seattle Democrat, in an example reported by the Seattle Times.
The 10% standard “harms confidence in Congress,” he said.
