Q. If I provide a gift to a covered official exceeding the gift limit in that jurisdiction, can the covered official reimburse my employer for the difference?

A. This is a situation you never, ever want to be in, but sometimes it happens. Fortunately, most of the states allow for the covered official to reimburse the donor in order to rectify the situation.

One of the circumstances precluding reimbursement is when too much time has elapsed between providing the excessive gift and reimbursement by the official. If too much time has passed, the state considers the gift to have been “accepted” by the official, and reimbursement is not an option.

Also, even if the official reimburses the overage, sometimes the lobbyist, the official, or both must nonetheless report the total value of the gift. From a disclosure standpoint, this makes a precarious situation even more suspect.

Some examples of these rules include the following:

• In Connecticut, the gift limit is $10. The official may not partially reimburse a more expensive gift to bring the final cost to the lobbyist below $10, because the overall value of the item is still over $10 [Advisory Opinion 1997-15].

• In the state of Washington, an official’s name cannot be removed from a filed lobbying report, regardless of whether the official has fully reimbursed the lobbyist for the reported expenditure. In addition, an official cannot partially reimburse a lobbyist for an expense to bring the total cost below the $50 reporting threshold. Even if a partial reimbursement occurs, both the lobbyist and the official must report the full amount. The only way an expenditure exceeding the threshold does not have to be reported is if the official fully reimburses the lobbyist prior to the lobbyist filing the lobbying report disclosing the expenditure.

• In New York, public officials and employees may completely reimburse the donor of a gift if the reimbursement is not removed or remote in time in order to comply with the gift ban [Advisory Opinion No. 97-03]. If an item, entertainment, or other benefit is received and payment of its market value is made prior to or simultaneously with receipt, there is no gift [Advisory Opinion No. 97-03].

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. Can I hire a federal, state, or local official who just left office to represent our interests before his or her former colleagues?

A. While the answer depends on the jurisdiction, the trend is definitely to increase the restrictions on the ability of former elected officials and government employees to seek employment as lobbyists after leaving their government positions.

Most commonly, these restrictions take the form of a waiting period during which the former official is not permitted to influence actions over which he or she exerted some power or influence.  Ostensibly, the waiting period allows this power or influence to dissipate.  It also allows time for the specific issues the former official influenced to move through the system, under the theory that the former official’s influence will be lessened on issues he or she did not directly handle.

The revolving door restrictions placed upon officials in New Jersey are fairly typical.  In that state, former members of the legislature, the governor, and heads of principal departments of the executive branch are prohibited from registering as lobbyists for one year after leaving office.  Anyone knowingly or willfully violating the revolving door restrictions is subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 and can be barred from engaging in lobbying in the state for up to an additional five years.  The law assigns the Election Law Enforcement Commission the power to hold hearings regarding possible violations and assess the enumerated penalties if the violations are found to have occurred.

Most jurisdictions that have introduced ethics legislation in recent years have included revolving door provisions, as the Indiana General Assembly did this year with the passage of House Bill 1001.  Because of the increasing prevalence and importance of these laws, State and Federal Communications will be focusing on this issue and addressing it in our Executive Source on Lobbying Laws.

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 registered in numerous states.  What are some of the features I need to know regarding renewing my lobbyist registrations for 2011?   Do all my registrations automatically expire at the end of the year?  H-E-L-P!

A. These are all very good questions, as January 1, 2011 is quickly approaching.  The expirations on December 31 of this year are particularly thorny because they include not only those states having annual expirations, but most biennial expirations occur at the end of an even-numbered year.

As the states begin their 2011 legislative sessions, here are some things to keep in mind:

Annual registrations:  The majority of states have a registration term based on a calendar year.  If registered in any of the following states, your registration will expire on December 31, 2010.

Alabama	Mississippi
Alaska	Missouri
Arkansas	Nebraska
District of Columbia	New Hampshire
Florida [legislative and executive]	New Mexico
Georgia	North Carolina
Idaho [legislative and executive]	Ohio [executive]
Illinois	Oklahoma
Indiana [legislative and executive]	Rhode Island [legislative]
Iowa [legislative]	South Carolina
Kansas	Tennessee
Louisiana [legislative and executive]	Texas
Massachusetts

Biennial registrations:  The trick to keeping track of your registration expiration for biennial states is knowing whether the biennium ends on December 31^st of an even-numbered or odd-numbered year.

Those states with biennial registrations expiring on December 31, 2010, include:

California	Pennsylvania
Connecticut	Utah
Hawaii	Vermont
Montana	Washington
New York	West Virginia
Ohio [legislative]	Wisconsin

Legislative sessions:  In some states, registrations expire at the end of the regular legislative session.  These include Nevada [sessions are held in odd-numbered years] and South Dakota.  In Iowa, executive branch lobbyist registration is valid until the next regular session of the general assembly.

Non-calendar years:  In other states, registrations expire at the end of a year, but that year is defined as other than January 1 to December 31.  These states have the following registration terms:

Colorado [July 1 to July 15 of the subsequent year]	North Dakota [July 1 to June 30]
Kentucky executive [August 1 to July 31]	Virginia [May 1 to April 30]
Maine [December 1 to November 30]	Wyoming [May 1 to April 30]
Maryland [November 1 to October 31]

On-going registrations:  Once you register in the following states, your registration is on-going until you affirmatively terminate.  These include:

Delaware
Federal
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey [a fee is due annually on November 15]
Rhode Island executive

And then there is Arizona:  Just to keep you on your toes, Arizona has a biennial registration where lobbyists renew during November of odd-numbered years, and employers renew during November of even-numbered years.

Q. As a registered lobbyist, I am often contacted by elected officials to make a corporate contribution to the officials’ charity of choice, foundation, or scholarship fund. Is this legal? Am I required to disclose these contributions on my lobbying reports?

A. This scenario happens more and more every day. Even though the official does not derive direct, political contributions for his or her campaign, such charitable contributions nonetheless result in positive exposure for the official, goodwill by the lobbyist, and beneficiaries that include the underprivileged, the sick, and the elderly. Furthermore, the monetary amount of corporate charitable donations can surpass the amount of permissible political contributions under campaign finance law.

Most states allow a lobbyist’s employer to make charitable contributions at the behest of an elected official and there are no reporting obligations. Some of the other jurisdictional requirements include:

FEDERAL: Pursuant to House and Senate Rules, charitable contributions made by a registered lobbyist at the behest or designation of a legislative member or employee are prohibited, unless the member or employee has designated the contribution to a charitable organization in lieu of an honorarium.

Please note, however, a charitable organization established by a person before that person became a covered official – and where that covered official has no relationship to the organization after becoming a covered official – is not considered to be established by a covered official.

NEW YORK: Charitable contributions made at the behest of a public official are not permitted.

NEW JERSEY and NEVADA: The charitable contribution is allowed but is not reportable as long as the contribution is not made in the official’s name.

CALIFORNIA: The contribution is permissible but must be reported by the official, not the lobbyist or the employer.

CONNECTICUT: The charitable contribution is permissible and is reported as a lobbying expenditure.

DELAWARE: The contribution is reported as a gift.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: The contribution is reported as other.

WYOMING: The contribution is only reported if it exceeds $500.

UTAH: Charitable contributions given for a political purpose are reportable.

If clients who subscribe to our Executive Source Guide on Lobbying Laws™ have further questions about other jurisdictions, they can always check the particular jurisdiction in the online resources. Or, clients can call us if they have some special information need.

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, and based on my time, compensation, and expenses, I have crossed the threshold prescribed by state law requiring registration. My company has employees whose contact with state legislators, executive officials, and employees meets the definition of lobbying, but they do not exceed the threshold requiring registration. Am I under any obligation to disclose their lobbying activities even though they are not registered? Is my employer?

A. This is a good example of something we advise our clients all the time: know your state! Here are examples of jurisdictions where you need to know the nuances of non-lobbyist reporting requirements.

CALIFORNIA: You are only required to register as a lobbyist if you spend at least one-third of your time lobbying in a calendar month. However, other employees at your company might need to report their pro-rata share of compensation if they spend 10 percent or more of their time lobbying in any one calendar month.

This includes time spent involved in grassroots activity, providing research services, and preparing materials to be used for lobbying. This information is disclosed on the lobbyist employer report Form 635 as “Other Payments to Influence Legislative or Administrative Action,” Part III, Section D. Luckily, clerical staff are never considered non-lobbyist employees.

NEW JERSEY: If you are a lobbyist, you must register if you spend more than 20 hours in a calendar year attempting to influence legislation, regulations, or governmental processes by communicating with a state official. Registered governmental affairs agents must disclose their operational costs, including compensation paid to support personnel, including legal, technical, and clerical staff. Now for the big exception. The compensation of an employee working less than 450 hours per calendar year in support of a governmental affairs agent is not reportable. (TIP: We advise you have support personnel track their time to ensure they do not exceed the 450-hour threshold.)

TEXAS: In this state, you are either a lobbyist or not – there is no in-between. In addition, individuals registered in Texas only report their own expenditures. Compensation is not reportable. Ever.

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.

The plaintiffs, who wanted to make campaign contributions to the reelection campaign of Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, allege the provisions of Ohio Revised Code section 3599.45 violates their First Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs are seeking an order from the U.S. District Court declaring the law unconstitutional as well as an order enjoining the Ohio Secretary of State from enforcing it.

The Chamber filed for, and was granted, a preliminary injunction against Land’s initial interpretation of Michigan’s campaign finance laws in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision. Land ruled the Chamber may make independent expenditures but could not set up a PAC to make them. Under the stipulated ruling, corporations, organization, and unions are still prohibited from making direct corporate contributions or using a PAC to do so.

Register to view our Citizens United Update and read how other states are reacting to the Citizens United decision, here.

On this day, thirty-six years ago, President Gerald R. Ford issued Proclamation 4311 announcing the unconditional pardon of ex-President Richard Nixon.

Ford had been President just short of a month following the resignation of Nixon on August 9, 1974 when he took the momentous step of pardoning his predecessor. Issuing the pardon would go on to define Ford’s presidency—and most likely cost him the 1976 election against Democrat Jimmy Carter. At the time, many people suspected a backroom deal had led to the pardon, but Ford disagreed. The country needed to move on from the trauma of Watergate and he alone had the power to pardon Richard Nixon even though no charges had been officially filed at that point in time. President Ford, though, believed the time was right. The country’s “long national nightmare” had to end.

Ford’s pardon of Nixon helped the country move past Watergate even though he may have paid a price for it politically in 1976. In 2001, the John F. Kennedy Foundation awarded President Ford the Profile in Courage Award. The Profile in Courage Award honors “modern-day elected officials who stand up for the public interest, even when it is not in their own interest to do so. The award celebrates individuals who choose principles over partisanship – who do what is right, rather than what is expedient.”

(more…)

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.

Here is a question we have been asked many, many times by clients over the years.

Q. How do I most accurately calculate my pro-rata share of compensation when I am registered as a lobbyist in five different states? Do I take my gross annual salary and divide it by five?

A. If you take your gross annual salary and divide it by five, you will undoubtedly over-report your compensation. Although you can never go wrong over-reporting, you should also strive for accurate reporting, especially in this instance.

Think of your lobbying in terms of hours. Review your calendar a month, or even a week, at a time to determine the number of hours you lobbied in a particular state. Now, assign a dollar value to those hours, and the result is accurate reporting.

To do this, follow this formula:

1.    Take your gross annual salary and divide it by 2,080 (52 weeks in a calendar year multiplied by 40 hours per week). This is your hourly rate.

2.    Multiply the number of hours you lobbied by your hourly rate. This amount is the reportable pro-rata share of your compensation for lobbying in that state.

Here’s an example:

1.     Gross annual salary is $120,000.

2.     $120,000 divided by 2,080, is an hourly rate of $57.69.

3.    Fifteen hours lobbied in a particular state during a reporting period, multiplied by the hourly rate of $57.69, is $865.35. In this example, this is your reportable pro-rata share of your compensation for lobbying.

Of course, you have work weeks that exceed 40 hours. And you also go on vacation. Using 2,080 as the number of work hours in a calendar year is a generally accepted accounting principle that will sustain scrutiny of even the most stringent of state auditors.

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.

These types of indirect efforts, also known as “grassroots lobbying,” encompass a wide variety of activities.  Sanctions, penalties, and fines arise when organizations fail to realize that their efforts to persuade the general population on various issues may possibly be considered lobbying.

The good news is that many states are explicit as to whether they consider grassroots efforts lobbying.  States like Arizona and Ohio define lobbying as direct communication with legislators, thereby excluding grassroots.  States that do regulate grassroots activity, for example, Mississippi and New Hampshire, use language such as soliciting others and indirect communication with legislators to indicate that grassroots efforts require registration.

Reporting grassroots activity is often more complicated than reporting direct lobbying expenditures.  In most states, reporting direct lobbying expenses is straightforward.  It is not difficult to determine what is an expenditure spent on an official.  Reporting grassroots costs becomes confusing because grassroots lobbying often consists of mass media campaigns, along with websites and e-mails.  It is difficult to tell exactly which costs are included in the registration and reporting thresholds.  For example, in the case of a website, do you include the salary of the person creating the website, the cost of web access, or the cost of any outsourced work? (more…)

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.

Q. I attended the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures. While there, I took a group of legislators from various states to dinner and picked up the tab. Most of the legislators were accompanied by spouses. In those jurisdictions requiring disclosure of this dinner expenditure, must I also disclose the amount spent on the spouse?

A. Almost all states requiring disclosure of food and beverage expenditures incurred on behalf of reportable officials also require disclosure of the amount spent on the official’s spouse or immediate family member. However, there are exceptions.

• In Idaho, the lobbying law does not require disclosure of expenditures for spouses and family members of legislators. However, it is common practice for lobbyists to report such expenditures anyway.

• In Michigan, food and beverage expenditures on behalf of spouses or family members are not reportable. However, travel expenditures greater than $725 on behalf of spouses or family members are reportable.

• In Montana, a principal is not required to report expenditures made on behalf of a spouse or immediate family member of a legislator, public officer, or employee.

• In Rhode Island, expenditures made on behalf of family members are not reportable as lobbyist expenditures, but are reported by elected officials.

• In Vermont, expenditures on behalf of a spouse or immediate family member are not reportable.

(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.

The Connecticut House of Representatives voted to override Governor M. Jodi Rell’s veto of the bill designed to reinstate the public election financing program, which had been previously limited by a federal court decision. The state senate had already voted to override the veto.

The immediate effect of the vote is to provide gubernatorial candidate Dan Malloy with six million dollars from the Citizens’ Election Program, twice as much as he was originally scheduled to receive.

For the twelfth consecutive year, State and Federal Communications, Inc. exhibited at the National Conference of State Legislature’s Annual Legislative Summit. This year the conference was held in Louisville, Kentucky. We always find that our attendance at the conference is enriching and productive, even when some days start with a 7:30 a.m. team breakfast meeting and end with the SGAC Late Night event [which, by the way, is never a disappointment]!

However, this year stands apart from the rest in that I was invited to moderate one of the continuing legal education sessions.  Entitled Citizens United v. FEC:  Political Blockbuster?, the panel addressed the ruling in January by the United States Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to bar corporations and labor unions from making either independent expenditures or electioneering communications.  At NCSL’s 2010 Spring Forum held in Washington, D.C., in April, the group immediately saw the importance of including a session at the annual Legislative Summit to address the impact the Court decision will undoubtedly have on the states.

The panel was comprised of Ken Gross, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Washington, D.C.; Jason Torchinsky, a partner at Holtzman Vogel PLLC, in Virginia; and Maryland Delegate Jon S. Cardin, who represents Maryland’s 11th District in Northwest Baltimore County. Disclosure requirements in light of the post-Citizens United political landscape were perhaps the most lively debated issue by the panel, and it could not have been more timely given the fact that within the hour after our panel adjourned, Senate Democrats failed to gather the 60 votes needed to overcome an expected filibuster of The DISCLOSE Act, Congress’ legislative response to the ruling in Citizens United.

Here is Nola Werren moderating the Citizens United Panel discussion at NCSL:

No recap of this year’s NCSL Legislative Summit would be complete without mentioning Ohio Night. The venue for the event was the LeRoy Neiman Gallery at the Muhammad Ali Center. Having grown up watching a lot of Sunday afternoon sports with my dad, I was quite familiar with LeRoy Neiman and his signature artistic style. He would usually start with a blank canvass at the beginning of, let’s say, a golf tournament, and by the end of the tournament, his abstract was complete and captured the essence of the event in all its vivid glory. Well, the gallery at the Muhammad Ali Center did not disappoint. Especially impressive were his renderings of the two Ali versus Liston fights for boxing’s world heavyweight championships.

Every year since 1999, our experience at the annual NCSL Legislative Summit seems to outdo the previous year. Next year’s summit in San Antonio will undoubtedly live up to that expectation….and who knows what “political blockbuster” might occur between now and then.

Attorney General Darrell McGraw issued a statement suggesting a special primary election be held in November to begin the process of filling U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd’s seat despite the fact current law does not allow for it. Byrd, who served in the Senate for more than 50 years, passed away on June 28, 2010. The initial ruling from Secretary of State Natalie Tennant says the election may not be held until November, 2012 because the filing deadline to be a candidate has passed. McGraw says Tennant’s ruling does not give enough weight to the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution, which provides for popular election of Senators and only temporary appointments. Under McGraw’s plan, the legislature would actually change the state election code to allow for an election this year under these circumstances. Governor Joe Manchin has indicated he will speak with legislative leadership about changing the election code at the special session scheduled to convene on July 19, 2010.