The Florida Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections is working on a proposed bill to revise the state’s ethics law.

The draft language relating to lobbying and gift law in the bill establishes a fine for executive branch lobbyists for failure to provide required information or knowingly providing false information in a report, and prohibits vendors from providing gifts to reporting individuals or procurement employees. Other changes the committee is considering include:

• Restrictions on former legislators’ employment as a lobbyist, such as ban on executive branch lobbying and a prohibition on becoming a partner, principal, or employee of a firm whose primary business is lobbying the state legislature within the two years after a legislator leaves office; and
• A prohibition on or reduced gift limit for gifts to covered individuals from committees of continuous existence, or CCEs. House Speaker Will Weatherford has called for elimination of CCEs, which are often used by legislators to pay for meals, travel, and gifts.

The committee plans to have final draft language available on January 18, and plans to consider the proposed bill at its January 22 meeting.

It’s Friday again and Highlighted Site of the Week has a special edition for you. This week, we honor the anniversary of the first televised broadcast of the U.S. House proceedings, which took place on January 3, 1947.

The first feature is the Historical Highlights page from the U.S. House of Representatives’ History, Art & Archives site. We also have the U.S. Congress and Television page from The Museum of Broadcasting Communications.

On the Archives website, you will find information about what happened during the proceedings. According to the site:

“The first live television broadcast from the House Chamber occurred during the opening session of the 80th Congress (1947–1949). The two-hour broadcast appeared on a local television station and was transmitted to Philadelphia and New York. The broadcast captured the ritual of opening day ceremonies and concluded after Speaker Joseph Martin’s opening address.”

On the Museum site it will give you more in depth details about the congress and their televised proceedings.

If you would like to see videos from the history of the Office of the Clerk, take a look at their YouTube Channel.

Thanks for reading and we will see you next time!

January 29-30, 2013  GOVERNING’s Outlook in the States & Localities Conference 2013: The Power of States and Localities,
Washington, D.C.

February 5-8, 2013   Public Affairs Council National Grassroots Conference, Key West, Florida

February 22-25, 2013   National Governors Association Winter Meeting Washington, D.C.

Q. I am an in-house employee; however, I am not a registered lobbyist in my responsible state. Although I engage in lobbying activities from time to time, I do not meet the state’s registration threshold. However, other people from my company are registered. Do I have to disclose my expenditure and/or compensation for lobbying activities on company reports?

A. In some jurisdictions, although you are not a registered lobbyist, you may be required to include your expenditure and/or compensation information on company lobbying disclosure reports. There are 27 states requiring some level of reporting for non-lobbyist employees, including Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Every state treats non-lobbyist reporting differently. For example, in California, you are only required to include your compensation and reimbursed expenditures on a quarterly employer report if you spend more than 10% or more of your compensated time in a calendar month engaging in lobbying activities. In states such as North Carolina, Illinois, or New Jersey, permissible expenditures on behalf of public officials must be reported by the employer or registered lobbyist.

In the above jurisdictions where your company has an active lobbying presence, monitoring potential reportable activity is incredibly important. Although your level of activity may not necessitate registration in a state, you must become familiar with the state’s non-lobbyist reporting requirements, and carefully track activity, which may include the following:

• Compensation for lobbying activity;
• Personal reimbursed expenditures for food, travel, or lodging in connection with lobbying activity;
• Expenditures on behalf of public officials or employees;
• Sponsorships for events where public officials or employees will be present and receive a benefit; and/or
• Subject matter lobbied, including agencies contacted.

In sum, as you are reviewing your potential lobbyist registration obligations for the new year, it is just as important to review your potential reporting obligations as a non-lobbyist employee in the jurisdictions where your level of activity does not require registration.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: marketing@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.

Q. I am a registered lobbyist who will be having a colleague accompany me to meetings with legislators. Should I be concerned with registration and/or reporting for my colleague?

A. Many individuals believe the presence of a registered lobbyist relieves a person of any disclosure requirements. Most jurisdictions have no exemption for this scenario. Lobbyist registration and reporting is required upon meeting the registration threshold.

Some jurisdictions do have limited exemptions from lobbyist registration requirements. In California, these particular actions would not be counted towards the lobbyist registration threshold. You do not engage in direct communication when you meet with a covered official in the company of a registered lobbyist retained by you or your employer. In Idaho, corporate employees need not register if the corporation is registered as a lobbyist and designates one or more of its employees as the corporation’s official lobbyist and the designated lobbyist is also registered.

Even if registration is not required, you must consider the applicable reporting requirements. A number of jurisdictions require your employer to report all lobbying expenses, which include those for employees who lobby but do not meet the registration requirements. Wisconsin specifically requires the disclosure of pro-rata compensation and expenses for these non-lobbyist employees. In Idaho, even if you are not required to register as discussed above, expenditures made by unregistered corporate employees in a lobbying effort must appear on the applicable reports.

Whenever you lobby state officials, consider all disclosure and compliance requirements, especially those related to the reporting for a non-lobbyist employee.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: marketing@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is continuing to overhaul the city’s ethics code by introducing another ordinance based on his ethics task force’s recommendations. While this proposed ordinance deals mostly with governmental employees and elected officials, it would also bring some changes to lobbyist registration and reporting.

The ordinance, if approved, will change the definition of a lobbyist. Currently, volunteers, employees, officers, and directors of a not-for-profit entity are exempted from registering as a lobbyist. However, the proposed ordinance will eliminate that exemption and require those members of a not-for-profit entity who seek to influence legislative or administrative action to register as a lobbyist. The proposal does allow the ethics board to create objective criteria allowing for a reduction or a waiver of the registration fees for not-for-profits lobbyists.

Finally, under the proposal, lobbyists would be required to disclose the actual amount of compensation received from employers. Currently, the compensation needs only to be rounded to the nearest $1,000.

Photo of the Daley Plaza and Chicago City Hall by JeremyA on Wikipedia.

Following a volatile election season that saw spending in excess of $6 billion, the makeup of the federal government not only stayed the same, but leadership in both parties will also change very little. Republicans held elections to their leadership posts on Wednesday, and Democrats are slated to hold elections on November 29.

Democratic House Leadership:
While democrats gained seats in the house, those gains weren’t nearly enough to win back the majority and the biggest question for house leadership was whether Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) would stay on in that role in the 113th Congress. In a press conference held Wednesday morning, surrounded by a number of new and current representatives, Pelosi announced she would again run for the position she’s held since 2011. Pelosi is not expected face any serious challenge but made one stipulation to her decision; that Rep. Steve Israel (NY) stay on as the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the next election cycle.

With Pelosi’s decision, the rest of the leadership positions are expected to fall into place with Rep. Steny Hoyer (MD) to remain Minority WHIP and Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) to stay on as assistant leader. The only expected change near the top of Democratic leadership is Rep. Xavier Becerra (CA) who announced he would run for the number four spot as the House Democratic Caucus Chair; a seat vacated by term limited Rep. John Larson (CT).

Republican House Leadership:
As expected, Speaker John Boehner (OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (VA) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (CA) will stay in the top three leadership positions. The only new face to the top of Republican leadership is Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA) who won election to the fourth leadership spot as chairwoman of the House GOP Conference, replacing outgoing chair Jeb Hensarling (TX).

McMorris Rodgers was silently backed by the Speaker and other House leaders, while former Vice Presidential candidate and House Budget Chairman, Paul Ryan publicly supported Rep Tom Price (GA). Additionally, Rep. Greg Walden (OR) will replace outgoing chairman Pete Sessions (TX) to head up the National Republican Campaign Committee where has served as Vice Chairman for the last two cycles.

Senate Leadership Changes:
Senate leadership saw even fewer changes as both Sens. Harry Reid (NV) and Dick Durbin (IL) will maintain the top two Democratic Leadership positions, and Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY) will stay on as Senate Minority Leader. With the retirement of Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ), the Republicans elected outgoing National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (TX) as the new Senate Minority Whip.

On the campaign side, The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairmanship has been offered to Sen. Michael Bennet (CO). Bennet turned down the job in 2010, and has no hard deadline for making a decision this time around. The freshman Senator would be taking over for Sen. Patty Murray (WA).

Likewise, the NRSC has elected a new chairman. Sen. Jerry Moran (KS) will head the committee for the next election cycle, while Sen. Rob Portman (OH) and Sen.-elect Ted Cruz (TX) will serve as vice chairmen.

November 17-20, 2012   SGAC Leaders’ Policy Conference, Santa Monica, California

November 28-30, 2012    ALEC States and Nation Policy Summit, Washington, D.C.

December 2-5, 2012   COGEL Annual Conference 2012, Columbus, Ohio

December 3, 2012  Women in Government Relations PACs, Politics and Grassroots Taskforce Annual Conference, TBD

With election day less than a week away, the electoral college is still perhaps the most influential and simultaneously least understood aspect of American Presidential elections. After tens of millions of votes are cast, only 270 are required to be elected President of the United States. Established under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the electoral college was later amended by both the twelfth and twentieth amendments to arrive at its current form. The idea is that states vote for the President and Vice President, and the people vote for the legislature. This method was essentially a compromise between those who wanted Congress to elect the President versus those who prefered a nationwide popular vote.

Each state is allotted a number of electors equal to the size of its congressional delegation. For example, Ohio’s 18 electoral votes equal it’s 16 members of the House of Representatives and two Senators. With a total of 538 electors (Washington D.C. is allotted three votes despite having no voting members in Congress) a majority of 270 is required to win election. Though the process varies, electors are generally selected by the political parties at statewide conventions or by each parties central committee’s. On election day, voters choose the electors by casting votes for one of the Presidential candidates on the ballot. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, all of a state’s electors are awarded to the candidate who receives the most total votes. Maine and Nebraska award electors proportionally allowing these states to award votes to more than one candidate.

The electors meet to cast votes on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December in their respective states, and send the certified results to Congress. Congress then counts the official tally in a joint session on January 6 following the year of the electors meeting. While there is no Constitutional provision or federal law that requires an elector to cast a ballot based on the popular vote of their respective states, most state and party laws require electors to adhere to popular vote pledges. Additionally, the Supreme Court has traditionally held that electors must vote consistent with the results in their states. In practice, electors generally do not go against the will of the electorate. According the National Archives, the official record keeper of Presidential elections, less than 1 percent of electoral voters have not voted in accordance with the popular vote historically.

Essentially what all of this means is that each candidate is focused on a small number of states that are likely to go either way instead of running nationwide campaigns trying to win the popular vote. Based on a number of recent maps drawn from incessant polling and statistical models, there are between 7 and 9 states still rated as toss-ups in the election (FL, CO, IA, NC, NH, NV, OH, VA, WI). Without the electoral votes offered by these states, President Obama currently has between 237 and 243 electoral votes (NV leans D in some projections) to Governor Mitt Romney’s 191 to 206 votes (NC leans R in some projections).

If there is any confusion as to which states each candidate deems vital to winning the election, look no further than each campaigns schedule over the next few days. Both President Obama and Governor Romney will present their closing arguments in each of the aforementioned swing states hoping to turn that last undecided voter before election day. And if you’re still curious, keep in mind that no republican has EVER won the Presidency without winning Ohio, so expect to see a lot of the Romney campaign in the buckeye state.

To learn more about the electoral college visit the National Archives and to build your own electoral map and lay the path to 270 for each candidate, visit 270towin.com.

Q. I am a registered lobbyist who was asked to make an in-kind contribution on behalf of my company for an event to be held by a state political party. Is this permissible?

A. As a registered lobbyist, your contributions may be governed by two sets of laws: campaign finance and lobbying.

First, you must determine whether the state would consider the in-kind payment to be a contribution or a lobbying expenditure.

If the in-kind payment is determined by the state’s governing body to be a contribution, then this contribution must be compliant with the campaign finance laws. You must first determine if the amount and source of funding are permissible. Assuming permissibility of the contribution, potential restrictions on contributions facilitated by lobbyists and the reportability of contributions facilitated by lobbyists will need to be reviewed. In some states, once the in-kind contribution is made, the lobbyist and the lobbyist’s principal may not have additional involvement with the planning of the event, but will be permitted to attend.

Where the state considers the in-kind payment to be a lobbying expenditure and not a political contribution, you must ensure that the expenditure will not exceed the state’s gift limit. The pro-rata share of the expenditure attributable to all public officials who attend the event may be reportable on a disclosure report.

While this analysis will vary from state to state, it is important to be cautious when making in-kind payments.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: marketing@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.

Mashable has a list of six apps, but I am featuring the three most interesting. One of them is NBC Politics, which is an app for the iPad and iPhone.  It provides up-to-date NBC election coverage and allows users to predict which candidate will win in each of the states.

Talking Points Memo’s PollTracker is an app for the iPhone. This app gives you the latest news on where the polls stand in both the congressional and presidential elections.

Washington Post Politics is an iPad-only app.  It has a map, which is different from the one on NBC Politics. Washington Post Politics shows the polling data of each state and the campaign ads running in the swing states.

The second site I am covering is Venture Beat and I’ll highlight two of the apps they list. Ad Hawk is an app for Android and iOS. It can listen to any political ad and give you the information behind the ads sponsors.  It’s pretty much Shazam for campaign ads.

YouTube Election Hub is not a mobile app but is a channel on YouTube that features content from the conventions, the debates, and election news.  It also gets its information from ABC News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and more.

Check out these sites for more political apps.

Have a great weekend and I’ll see you next time.

A federal court rejected an injunction trying to overturn Illinois’ political contribution law. Illinois Liberty PAC filed for the injunction contending the state law violated its First Amendment right to free speech. Illinois law limits the amount individuals, PACs, unions, and corporations may give to candidates each election. However, the law does not limit what political parties may contribute to a campaign.

Illinois Liberty PAC contended that if it was limited in what it could contribute, everybody should be limited. United State District Judge Gary Feinerman disagreed, holding that the injunction “would create a manifest possibility of actual or apparent corruption” and cause harm to the state’s citizens.

This ruling will not be the end of the case. Illinois Liberty PAC plans on filing an emergency motion with the appellate court in hopes of suspending the limits for the upcoming November election. Also, the courts will eventually have to rule on the constitutionality of Illinois’ contribution limits.

October 11, 2012   WASRG Summit, Washington, D.C.

November 17-20, 2012   SGAC Leaders’ Policy Conference, Santa Monica, California

November 28-30, 2012   ALEC States and Nation Policy Summit, Washington, D.C.

Q. I am interested in making contributions to state candidates in the upcoming elections. Does the fact that I’m a registered lobbyist affect my ability to contribute?

A. In certain states, being a registered lobbyist does impact your ability to give to a political candidate, ranging from a total ban on political activity, to simply having to report the contributions on your periodic reports.

In Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, lobbyists may not make contributions to lawmakers while the state legislature is in session. Fortunately, in the context of the upcoming elections, most states have adjourned sine die. In California, a lobbyist may not make a contribution to a candidate for any office for which the person is registered to lobby. Because most lobbyists are registered to communicate with the legislature, this ends up being nearly a total ban on contributions to legislators. Similarly, in Kentucky, a lobbyist registered with the legislative branch may not make a contribution to a lawmaker. In Alaska, a lobbyist is only allowed to contribute to candidates for office within his or her voting district.

There are several states in which lobbyists are allowed to make contributions, but must disclose the donations on their lobbyist reports. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Washington are examples.

Some states have unique provisions for politically-active lobbyists. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a lobbyist who makes political contributions must register and report in the same manner as PACs. Minnesota lobbyists must include their registration numbers in the memo section of campaign contribution checks.

If you or a member of your team would like to make a campaign contribution in a state in which you are registered, please contact a member of the State and Federal Communications Compliance Department for fact-specific guidance.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.