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.

Here is your chance to “Ask the Experts” at State and Federal Communications, Inc. 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. (Of course, we have always been 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. My employer makes corporate contributions in California. We have not yet exceeded $10,000 in calendar year 2010. The primary election and special elections are taking place, along with the general election in the fall. If we decide to make contributions, when do we have a late contribution report due?

A. The California “Late Contribution Report” [Form 497], sometimes referred to as the “24-hour report” is due during the 16-day period preceding any election if all of the following criteria are met:

• The contribution is $1,000 or more. This includes non-monetary and in-kind contributions.
• The corporation making the contribution must have already qualified as a major donor, or the contribution made during the 16-day period before the election puts them over the $10,000 threshold and they become a major donor.
• The recipient candidate or ballot committee must appear on the ballot at the election for which the 16-day period applies.
• Contributions to political parties made during the 16-day period are also included.

The filing requirements for Form 497 are:

• The report is due within 24 hours of making the contribution.
• No signature is required.
• The report must be filed electronically with the California Secretary of State, Political Reform Division, and then followed up by paper filing via facsimile to the following:

• California Secretary of State, Political Reform Division
• Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder
• San Francisco City and County Registrar

If the contribution is non-monetary or in-kind, the contributor must notify the recipient of the value of the contribution within 24 hours of making the contribution. The notice of value does not need to be filed with the state or any of the other filing offices listed above.

There is no standardized form. The notice should be sent to the recipient by personal delivery, fax, or guaranteed overnight delivery.

As a reminder, the late contribution must still be reported on the next major donor report that is due. In 2010, major donor reports are due July 31, 2010, for the period covering January 1 to June 30; and January 31, 2011, for the period covering July 1 to December 31.