[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6208637,"mediaKeyId","3743287-6c5bddea8bb5d602da19f974026257bb","parentId",3743287,"title","House narrows political activity by state‑funded nonprofits, adopts transparency and audit provisions","audioSeconds",211,"startMs",6106000,"endMs",6317000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3743287-6c5bddea8bb5d602da19f974026257bb&start=6106&end=6317","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3743287-6c5bddea8bb5d602da19f974026257bb/thumbnail_6106000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6208637/Louisiana/House-narrows-political-activity-by-statefunded-nonprofits-adopts-transparency-and-audit-provisions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208637-774b5e0fcb1e19446573393ef5cbb0c3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191926&Signature=gr0X6iarXoY-55eFnsswJQyJmt1ZC91Kg39lCEKkIbXj1CSUpwB6Vvg10Tgi6EnXfK83zqxU~Y9GjRKfzks5jTGx3myeTrIwykwpH8jhQt~ySENCOUEhLABtBQZPPfydIFvbo3EcSBWxz~opyprtie6-evNqU8c6sK0gqXgcpZzo3IbyOMjRpDxGFDs-0G1Ki32JSTmzwiSaUvD4qs9z4dl4XIgdGlyuXnk0~-ZXPvtN~r~OjzVk1a8NGaXnUMxvRsBlY0-IBA9CkHsF5mUCEXPcIL-cnKCIgEFCdinhQ~lN~eqJ503ercunyxZYeVlWrzSMJtI8dWNp4g3PtUU-zw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Louisiana Legislature","date","2025-06-09T00:00:00Z","article","The House debated and passed Senate Bill 245, a bill that places restrictions and reporting requirements on nongovernmental entities that receive appropriated state funds.

Representative Bakalaff (speaker on the floor) explained the bill clarifies funding‑request forms, sets criminal penalties for misuse of funds, imposes audit requirements, and prohibits the use of appropriated dollars for political activity such as lobbying, party contributions, or employment of party lobbyists. The sponsor said the bill was intended to prevent state funds from being used for political ends.

Several members pressed the sponsor on definitions and potential unintended consequences. Representative Marcel and others asked whether commonplace advocacy or visible advocacy actions by organizations that receive state funding — such as groups wearing organizational t‑shirts while meeting lawmakers or testifying on policy — could be considered “political activity” under the bill and thus jeopardize funding. The sponsor said the statute targets use of appropriated funds and activities undertaken with those funds; it does not bar individuals affiliated with nonprofits from engaging in political speech on their own time. The sponsor also noted the audit thresholds in the measure were unchanged from current law: small organizations under specified thresholds provide simpler sworn financial statements and larger grantees must provide CPA audits.

Representatives raised concerns that some small community providers — domestic violence shelters, councils on aging and disability advocates — could face administrative burden; sponsors responded the audit thresholds already exist in law and were not made more stringent by this bill.

The House adopted a set of technical and clarifying amendments and passed SB 245, 74-26.

Why it matters: The measure alters expectations for transparency and imposes explicit prohibitions on the use of state-appropriated funds for political activity. Nonprofits that accept state funds should review expenditure practices and compliance procedures if the bill becomes law.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House of Representatives Part 2 Jun 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers amended and passed Senate Bill 245, which requires nongovernmental entities that receive appropriated funds to refrain from certain political activities and confirms existing audit thresholds; the bill passed with bipartisan support on the floor.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature LA, Louisiana","taxId",78558,"location","Louisiana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208642,"House amends carbon‑sequestration bill to preserve prior permits and require local input",575,8890000,9465000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3743287-6c5bddea8bb5d602da19f974026257bb&start=8890&end=9465","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3743287-6c5bddea8bb5d602da19f974026257bb/thumbnail_8890000.jpg","/articles/6208642/Louisiana/House-amends-carbonsequestration-bill-to-preserve-prior-permits-and-require-local-input","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208642-e4f25ad4e7c97e72f17cb030c606923d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191926&Signature=YvYBPaWCrBE9Fifbc3pJDvv071A6j809-pYFEckMdWAMN3fjqSMatAyVXH8~w1lKyPuz9kD2bLVJTQVVQyOe6FOFws6bZb~FomaXYhjhrfNTVFbbiLZdd93HbPt998Hrsoib7a13tNLi4bTazU1vkxer4zIbUyHKeHrTcc1GP4OcuRmKXXTcQyy9y5~p8XJOcob3pPjCZ-Gq3F037x2LU5mGrQDW8e9Yj8Hlo4wIGlHnYX27RpcALY7gPCakDN2deyBMIxybI4A9u4QtIxA2XKuf30uySZu5g0b1FfjL4txUCA9dTJfEWgN66X24uhz9EH9Hr9dlT0bXAkjbywmPlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House took up Senate Bill 36, a bill governing carbon dioxide transport and sequestration permits, and adopted floor amendments that clarified the law’s effective date and exempted pipelines that already held a certificate of public convenience from new procedural changes.

Representative Guymon and other sponsors said the amendment was requested by the administration to make the effective date the governor’s signature date and to ensure that any pipeline that already had a certificate would remain subject to the rules in effect at the time its certificate was issued. The sponsor explained the change was intended to avoid retroactively altering the regulatory requirements for projects that had already secured state authorization.

Lawmakers also debated language directing the Department of Natural Resources (the commissioner) to give “substantial consideration” to local public comment, including municipal and parish input, during permit review. Sponsors said that language formalizes local engagement in the permitting process; critics sought a concrete definition for “substantial consideration,” but sponsors and the floor chair said the phrase allows the secretary discretion to weigh substantial local concerns without giving a veto to localities.

Members asked whether any pipelines already had certificates; the sponsor said the administration indicated one certificate existed involving two parishes (reported verbally on the floor) and that the amendment would preserve those prior authorizations. The House adopted the clarifying amendment and then passed the bill.

Votes at a glance: SB 36 — passed (final tally recorded on floor).

Why it matters: SB 36 changes procedural review for carbon projects and adds a role for local input; the adopted amendment seeks to avoid retroactive changes for projects that already hold permits while giving the commissioner authority to consider local concerns in permit decisions.

What’s next: With House passage, the bill will proceed through the legislative process; sponsors said implementation details and any future rulemaking will follow.","Lawmakers approved amendments clarifying that entities with an existing certificate of public convenience are grandfathered and directing the commissioner to give substantial consideration to local public input before issuing permits; the measure passed after technical fixes.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208645,"House advances immigration measures on data collection and cooperation with federal enforcement",1147,6033000,7180000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3743287-6c5bddea8bb5d602da19f974026257bb&start=6033&end=7180","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3743287-6c5bddea8bb5d602da19f974026257bb/thumbnail_6033000.jpg","/articles/6208645/Louisiana/House-advances-immigration-measures-on-data-collection-and-cooperation-with-federal-enforcement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208645-66b87de1c99fb83b9809c519c7f399fe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191926&Signature=C1ZLlh2eCu-i7D38VvVaqJG7X6jlye-NcZe3u37uLSSmlc7dif8pE2T89ST5lZhB9Kpiq-PReoDcNQKGHkwRtmKBm81Vi5nM-Esr9RIgHFWMN1Bb6iZosChn27odsYgYeuXWyCIeiZ~8Rj-TIu~EczYT4NuM8hQsdD~MNwb2epF3yC9DLMp9NtJRlzP2-gjfoDglhQGfUXE7X47mL3N0jbuRPww9HfLPjKe8mxVaI8-bXi1ZjOPXYLVfR97871~76fhGoB8hk7X5AV9HKIjz6VXJNayT1oIEECwwKeuLqSWdjRd5ab904hG4EV45RypVNmHL4rLUge4PCdlZAbCHxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Louisiana House approved legislation this session aimed at increasing state coordination with federal immigration authorities and collecting data on noncitizens who receive state-funded services.

Senate Bill 100, presented as codifying the governor’s executive order, directs specified state agencies — including the Department of Health, Department of Education, Department of Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles and others named on the floor — to implement a standardized process to determine and report the legal immigration status of individuals who receive state-paid services. The bill instructs agencies to use federal verification tools such as the SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) portal where applicable and conditions implementation on the availability of funds.

On the floor, Representative Villio and others said the bill is for transparency: to quantify taxpayer spending on noncitizens who are not authorized to be in the U.S. Opponents raised practical and civil‑liberties concerns: they asked whether the requirement would deter immigrants — including parents — from seeking medical care or other services, whether it might conflict with federal consent decrees (in Orleans Parish) and how the state would protect children and avoid unintended consequences. The sponsor repeatedly emphasized the bill’s stated purpose is data collection, not removal. The House passed SB 100, 74-27.

Separately, the House considered Senate Bill 15, which amends obstruction‑of‑justice and malfeasance statutes to make refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement a specific offense in certain circumstances. Proponents said the measure seeks to prevent jurisdictions from obstructing federal detainers and detaining requests; opponents, including representatives from parishes with long-running federal consent decrees, warned the bill could conflict with local court orders and expose local deputies or officials to criminal exposure for following court directives or consent‑decree terms. Supporters pointed to individual cases they said illustrated risks of releasing noncitizen defendants who later reoffended. The House approved SB 15, 71-30.

What lawmakers asked and did not resolve on the floor: who bears the administrative cost of universal verification; how the state will balance enforcement and confidentiality in health and child‑welfare settings; and whether data collection could have chilling effects on service use. Proponents said agencies already collect identity information and the bill mainly formalizes verification and reporting; critics said the change could produce enforcement outcomes beyond data collection.

Votes at a glance: SB 100 (codify executive order, SAVE verification) — passed 74-27; SB 15 (refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement added to obstruction statutes) — passed 71-30.

Why it matters: The twin measures change how state agencies collect and respond to immigration‑related information. Supporters argue the bills increase transparency and public safety; opponents say they risk deterring service use, conflict with federal consent decrees, and criminalize local discretion.","Lawmakers passed two separate measures: one to require state agencies to verify and report immigration status for beneficiaries of certain state-funded services, and another to define refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement as obstruction; both passed after floor debate.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6208650,"House rejects homeowner insurance premium tax credit after heated floor debate",2193,793000,2986000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3743287-6c5bddea8bb5d602da19f974026257bb&start=793&end=2986","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3743287-6c5bddea8bb5d602da19f974026257bb/thumbnail_793000.jpg","/articles/6208650/Louisiana/House-rejects-homeowner-insurance-premium-tax-credit-after-heated-floor-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208650-a8bc484b4b11984cf138961d2c5586b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191926&Signature=NWp6v0mpvGwLtcHTdHg0V~phgq0LVnIalc-wdwe3lFDo5ZyirdJRg9So98DqJeG7Wldtv~8W-sKOvXopRMiS3kkthWjDiqoL0N5LmrDm8h3hR3ADGZeX3VVygp~c6b0RQ1gDMAjywBoJ9-q-BeipO0sKMqni~pCpXxhzA-3YsuROTNLHt2w-TANXIFtrNRo87bbK7eL7NSPZzKaI8TnSklWWQWEPI~tQAHJkxiKCUtpqLViq8vzldFlQSPA3fsVCKw4i2r7vkG7GY7Jx2bUHG5K9q3EGGwes-8aQlkbcRXBq0xv2IU1iQ2-rCLo0u~FWYU1oidDGK-IwIsn-Ts0eZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Louisiana House of Representatives debated Senate Bill 235, a proposal to create an individual income tax credit to offset homeowners insurance premiums for low- and moderate-income residents, but voted to reject the amended measure Thursday.

Supporters said the credit targets residents they described as most vulnerable to rising homeowners insurance costs; opponents said the credit risks crowding out broader reforms and could weaken incentives for insurers to lower rates. Representative Riser, who called the bill from the calendar, said the credit would attach a $2,000 cap per taxpayer starting in 2027 and include a decade-long sunset provision.

The bill drew a series of floor amendments. Representative Emerson offered a package that removed refundability for some recipients, set a $1 million annual cap on the state’s exposure, and pushed the effective date to Jan. 1, 2028. Emerson said the changes were intended to provide “guardrails” so the credit would not discourage insurers from reducing rates. The House adopted that amendment, 65-29.

Opponents said the amendment did not address the bill’s core concern and argued the state should pursue measures that lower insurance rates rather than subsidize premiums. Representative McCormick said removing refundability would “gut a big portion of the bill” for households with the least income and that the fiscal office’s estimates left uncertainty about how many homeowners would benefit.

Members also debated whether the bill would be applied on a come‑serve basis if state funds were exhausted, and whether the credit’s structure might lead to unequal geographic distribution of benefits. Representative Landry, from the coastal delegation, urged members to consider the policy’s practical effect on homeowners at risk of losing their homes because of high premiums.

After floor debate and roll-call voting, the clerk closed the machine with a final tally of 48 yeas and 53 nays; the bill failed to pass.

Votes at a glance: SB 235 (Sen. Duplessis) — failed, final vote 48-53.

Why it matters: The measure was one of several bills this session aimed at addressing the state’s homeowners insurance crisis. Lawmakers disagreed on whether direct financial credits or market and regulatory reforms are the better route. The adopted amendment narrowed the bill’s fiscal exposure but did not persuade a majority to enact the credit.

What’s next: Because the House rejected the bill, it will not become law in its current form. Supporters noted the bill could be revived with different caps, offsets, or in conference negotiations with the Senate; opponents said the Legislature should focus on insurer competition and other rate‑reduction strategies.","Lawmakers debated Senate Bill 235 for nearly three hours, including amendments that narrowed refundability and delayed the credit’s start date; the House rejected the amended bill 48-53.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House narrows political activity by state‑funded nonprofits, adopts transparency and audit provisions

House amends carbon‑sequestration bill to preserve prior permits and require local input

House advances immigration measures on data collection and cooperation with federal enforcement

House rejects homeowner insurance premium tax credit after heated floor debate