The suit filed by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) alleged Maine’s laws governing political action committee definitions, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The plaintiffs also raised a First Amendment challenge alleging Maine’s regulations imposed excessive burdens which would only serve to chill its political speech.

Judge Hornby did agree with some of the plaintiff’s allegations and proceeded to strike down Maine’s rules requiring 24-hour disclosure of independent expenditures over $250 as “impermissibly burdensome”. As well, state law’s use of the words “influence” and “influence in any way” were struck down as being unconstitutionally vague.

Judge Hornby went on to uphold the bulk of Maine’s campaign finance laws concluding:

“Otherwise, Maine’s laws governing PACs, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements are constitutional, and survive NOM’s challenges they are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and they impose excessive burdens that chill NOM’s speech preceding this fall’s elections and thereafter.”

The plaintiffs are expected to pursue an expedited appeal to the U.S. First Circuit located in Boston.

The amendment would increase the amounts an individual may contribute to a ward council candidate from $100 to $200 and at-large council and mayoral candidates from $300 to $450. The proposed amendment would also remove campaign finance language currently in the city charter.

If approved, council would have to replace the campaign finance charter provisions with an ordinance within three months time. Finally, council would be required to review campaign finance issues on a biennial basis with provisions made for public hearings as part of the review process.

Akron voters will vote on the proposed campaign finance charter amendment November 2nd.

Rule 4.4 continues to bar judicial candidates from personally receiving or soliciting campaign contributions, but, under the revisions announced Wednesday, two new exceptions are available to judicial candidates. First, a judicial candidate may make a general request for campaign contributions when speaking to an audience of twenty or more persons. Second, a judicial candidate may sign letters soliciting campaign contributions if the letters are for distribution by the judicial candidate’s campaign committee and the letters direct contributions are to be sent to the campaign committee and not the judicial candidate.

The Justices voted 4-1 to amend Rule 4.4 with Justice Paul Pfeifer voting no and Chief Justice Eric Brown and Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger not participating as both are on the ballot this November. The Supreme Court’s move took place in response to a U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which struck down similar rules for judicial candidates in Kentucky.

Here is the text from the announcement on the Ohio Supreme Court Web site:

The amended solicitation rule continues to bar judicial candidates from personally soliciting or receiving campaign contributions, but establishes two new exceptions to the personal solicitation ban. … Those exceptions are:

• “A judicial candidate may make a general request for campaign contributions when speaking to an audience of twenty or more individuals;”
• “A judicial candidate may sign letters soliciting campaign contributions if the letters are for distribution by the judicial candidate’s campaign committee and the letters direct contributions to be sent to the campaign committee and not to the judicial candidate.”

The amendments to Rule 4.4 became effective on August 12, 2010.

Photo of the Ohio Judicial Center.

Per the terms of a settlement reached Tuesday, the G.A.B. will not enforce regulations requiring groups who run issue ads to disclose their financing if the ads they paid for aired 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Now, only advertisements advocating the defeat or election of identified candidates will be regulated in Wisconsin.

U.S. District Judge William M. Conley is expected to approve the settlement ending the litigation on August 11, 2010.

Here is the statement from the G.A.B. Web site.

You can read the Wisconsin Department of Justice stipulation letter to Judge Conley, and the Stipulation and Proposed Order.

For more news: “State agrees to drop new campaign ad rules,” by Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Photograph taken by Dori

Van Hollen explains, per Citizens United, any ban on corporate independent expenditures found in Wisconsin law violates the free speech and association guarantees of the First Amendment. The current prohibition found in Wisconsin law, however, banning the making and acceptance of corporate contributions was not reached by the Supreme Court and so it remains standing. Van Hollen goes on to explain Citizens United did not exclude issue advocacy from the scope of permissible reporting, disclosure, and disclaimer regulations which may be imposed by states like Wisconsin.

Finally, Van Hollen concurred with the recent efforts by the Government Accountability Board to suspend its enforcement of the corporate expenditure prohibition found in state law at Wisconsin Statutes § 11.38 (1)(a)(1) as those provision were clearly reached by the Citizens United decision. Attorney General Van Hollen’s opinion may be found at the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s Web site.

Photo of J.B. Van Hollen by WisPolitics.com on Wikipedia.

The reports can be found at: www.elec.state.nj.us. They include detailed information reported to ELEC by lobbyists and the represented entities employing them. Among the details to be found in the reports are the names, contact information, salaries, and expenses for all lobbyists registered with ELEC.

In previous years, ELEC has provided summarized information contained in the annual lobbying reports. They were not available online until now.

In addition to the reports filed by represented entities such as corporations, unions, and trade associations, the annual reports filed by grassroots lobbying groups are also available. The reports detail the funds raised by grassroots groups through contributions, membership dues, and expenses associated with the group’s communication efforts.

ELEC’s reports show total lobbyist spending reached $57.6 million in 2009 with 1,001 lobbyists registered with the commission.

Map from the National Atlas of the United States.

H.R. 4790 requires any corporation making political expenditures must first amend its bylaws to require majority shareholder approval of any political expenditure in excess of $50,000. Corporations would also have to annually report all political spending over $10,000 to their shareholders.

The legislation authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require disclosure of all political expenditures made by a corporation as well as the individual votes of company board members who authorized the expenditures. Further, the measure requires the SEC to publish the disclosures on its public website. The measure now moves to the full House for consideration though the vote may not occur until after Congress returns from its August recess.

Rhode Island General Treasurer Frank Caprio, who is running as a candidate for governor this fall, plans to argue the current system is equitable and has not placed the Moderate Party in a weaker financial position than the Republicans or Democrats.

U.S. District Judge William Smith will hear arguments in the suit this coming Thursday.

For further reading, here is an article by the Associated Press in the Boston Globe: “Caprio: RI campaign finance system is fair”

You will find many resources at the State of Rhode Island Board of Elections Campaign Finance Web site.

The measure creates the Lobbying Disclosure Act Enforcement Task Force inside the Department of Justice. The new task force will be charged with enforcing the disclosure provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Further, the bill amends existing federal lobbying law by making public the names of registered lobbyists and firms who violate disclosure regulations. The bill now heads to the Senate.

Update 8-2-2010: Here is an article from The Hill giving K Street’s reaction to the Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act: “K Street feels it’s being unfairly targeted by bill disclosing lobbying violators“

The legal petition filed by the lawmakers asks a state district court to review Wyoming’s election law in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. At present, Wyoming law prohibits corporations from making campaign contributions, a position which puts it at odds with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

While Wyoming’s election law hasn’t yet been challenged on grounds raised by Citizens United, it is seen by some lawmakers in Cheyenne as only a matter of time before a lawsuit emerges. The lawmakers hope their petition will preempt any such litigation against the state.

Here are some useful Wyoming links:

Wyoming’s eGovernment Site

Wyoming State Legislature Web site

Under the new legislation, the city’s contribution limits of $300 for mayoral and at-large council candidates and $100 for ward council candidates do not apply when candidates are raising money outside of their own elections or reelections and other expenses such as “the duties of public office and seeking nomination or election to another office”.

The new legislation also lifts contribution limits for fundraising efforts by candidates for other candidates or for a political party.

Watch for more news on the Akron City Council Web site and at Ohio.com.

For the time being, the Supreme Court’s ruling stands. Another vote is thought possible in September after Congress returns from the August recess.

Here are three articles for further reading:

“Senate Dems lack votes to overcome Republican filibuster of Disclose Act,” by Alexander Bolton in The Hill.

“Dems table campaign finance reform,” by Meredith Shiner in Politico.

“Bill on political ad disclosures falls a little short in Senate,” by Dan Eggen in the Washington Post.

The committees plan to use funds to make independent expenditures. Citing the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as well as a less-well known decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued this year called SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the FEC concluded corporations, labor organizations, and political committees may make unlimited independent expenditures from their own funds, and individuals may pool unlimited funds in an independent expenditure-only political committee.

In the case of the independent committee Commonsense Ten, a registered, non-connected political committee (Advisory Opinion 2010-11), the FEC concluded it could solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor organizations, and political committees for the purpose of making independent expenditures.

In the case of Club for Growth, Inc., a 501(c)(4) corporation, (Advisory Opinion 2010-09),the FEC concluded on the same basis provided by Citizens United and SpeechNow.org it could establish and administer a committee to solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals in the general public, including contributions given for specific independent expenditures.

The FEC issued both advisory opinions on a vote of 5 to 1. Commissioner Steven T. Walther dissented in both opinions.

The measure will come to a vote on the floor of the Senate early next week. Reid’s move begins the endgame for the legislation even though he does not yet have the votes to overcome the anticipated filibuster from the bill’s opponents.

New York Senator Charles Schumer, who authored S. 3295, the Senate’s version of the DISCLOSE Act, has modified the bill to address concerns raised when H.R. 5175 was passed by the House earlier this summer. Democrats hope the changes will be enough to win the support of Maine GOP Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of whom expressed reservations regarding the House bill. For example, Senator Collins believes H.R. 5175 provides unions with special exemptions and a corresponding unfair political advantage over corporations.

It is unclear at this time whether or not changes to the Senate bill offered by Schumer will be enough to overcome Collins’ and Snowe’s objections. The Senate vote could come as early as Tuesday.

If you are looking for more coverage, the Hill has two articles by Susan Crabtree:

“Schumer files new version of campaign-finance bill to court centrist votes,” July 22, 2010

“Sen. Reid sets up showdown next week on campaign finance,” July23, 2010