President Obama could soon issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose political campaign contributions, according to the New York Times. On January 19, White House officials said the president is “seriously considering” the order, as reported by the paper. The order has been pushed by many outside groups and by Democratic members of congress, who have in the past, and as recently as January 7th, presented the president with letters urging executive action.

Those opposed to an executive order argue, among other things, disclosure requirements encroach on free speech and are politically motivated. “The real goal of the disclosure proponents is to harass, intimidate and silence those with whom they disagree,” Blair Latoff Holmes, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is quoted as saying in the Times.

Among the riders in the federal 2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill passed into law on December 18, 2015, were two provisions affecting campaign finance. Congress explicitly prohibited the Internal Revenue Service from making new rules concerning the political speech or activity of 501(c)(4) organizations. The legislation also prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission from issuing regulations requiring corporations to disclose their political activity to their shareholders.

The Senate’s version of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2016, Senate Bill 1910, contained language altering the law regarding coordination between candidates and political parties. However, opposition from both parties prevented this rider making it in the final passed bill. The final bill also did not include a rider from House Resolution 2995, the House’s version of the bill, which would have barred the use of funds to recommend or require any entity submitting an offer for a federal contract to disclose specified political contributions as a condition of submitting the offer.

Photo of the United States Capitol by Martin Falbisoner on Wikimedia Commons.

On September 10, a bill requiring disclosure of funding for California government officials’ travel was sent by the Legislature to the Governor. Senate Bill 21 requires a nonprofit organization paying for the actual costs of travel for an elected state officer or local elected officeholder to disclose the names of donors responsible for funding the payments. The legislation also requires a person who receives a gift of a travel payment from any source to report the travel destination on his or her statement of economic interests.

On August 6, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion finding 65 bills from the 2015 legislative session were vetoed by Gov. Paul LePage too late to prevent the legislation from taking effect.

Last month, the governor had returned the 65 bills to the Legislature on July 16, the last day of the session. However, the bills were returned beyond the 10 days, excluding Sundays, a governor has to veto legislation once he or she receives the bills.The court found the bills were beyond the ten days provided for gubernatorial objection and became law effective ninety days after the adjournment sine die of the Legislature, except where enacted as emergency legislation.

The opinion was made at the request of the governor.

The Montana Senate and the House both adjourned sine die on April 28, 2015.

Governor Steve Bullock, who does not have a pocket veto, has 10 days upon delivery to sign, veto, or recommend amendments to bills. The Legislature, which meets in regular session for 90 working days in every odd-numbered year, will have its next regular session in 2017.

Photo of the Montana State Capitol by Maksim on Wikimedia Commons.

The Utah Legislature adjourned its 2015 session sine die on March 12, 2015. Governor Gary Herbert has until April 1 to veto or sign legislation. The Governor does not possess a pocket veto. The normal effective date for bills passed this year is May 12.

Photo of the Utah State Capitol by Robert Cutts on Wikimedia Commons.

On November 25, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled corporations and labor organizations making electioneering communications are required to disclose all donors making contributions over $1,000. Under 11 C.F.R. §104.20(c)(9), the Federal Election Commission’s regulation ruled invalid, disclosure was only required when made explicitly for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.

In Christopher Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission, the Court found the commission’s regulation “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law” and “an unreasonable interpretation of the [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)].” 52 U.S.C. § 30104(f)(d)(E)–(F) of the BCRA does not require any preconditions for when to disclose donors making contributions over $1,000.

The Court ruled the commission’s regulation “serves to frustrate the aim of the statute because the introduction of a subjective test to the reporting regime creates an exception that has the potential to swallow the rule entirely. A donor can avoid reporting altogether by transmitting funds but remaining silent about their intended use.”

The case was brought in 2011 by U.S. Rep. Christopher Van Hollen.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford won another election last night in Toronto, albeit for the Ward 2 City Council seat he occupied before becoming mayor. The incumbent mayor’s brother, Doug Ford, lost his own bid to be the next mayor of the city against John Tory, the Progressive Conservative candidate.

According to CBC News Toronto,  Rob Ford, who withdrew from the mayoral race earlier this year due to illness, said, “I can assure you, I’ll be taking care of my health and I’ll be taking care of the people in Etobicoke North and I’ll continue to take care of every taxpayer in this city, like I always have.”

Photo of Rob Ford by West Annex News on Wikimedia Commons.

On October 22, U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen upheld the Montana’s campaign finance law. Montanans for Community Development (MCD), a nonprofit organization, had brought the lawsuit challenging the law’s requirement to have the organization report its financial supporters.

According to Missoulian.com, MCD wanted to circulate political advertisements without disclosing the identity of its donors. Disagreeing with MCD’s argument, the court found the statutes were not too vague to be constitutionally valid. MCD’s legal representation included James Bopp, a frequent challenger of campaign finance laws.

On June 18, the Kansas Ethics Commission dismissed a complaint accusing a candidate of soliciting contributions from lobbyists through social media, according to the Kansas City Star.

On May 1, while the Legislature was still in session, a Facebook page for former state Sen. Jean Schodorf’s campaign was posted seeking help to raise money for her political campaign for secretary of state. Clay Barker, the state GOP executive director, made a complaint after a lobbyist “liked” the page. State law prohibits candidates from seeking contributions from lobbyists while the Legislature is in session.

Schodorf told the Star the commission informed her they found no probable cause to believe she violated the law and dismissed the complaint.

The first session of the 33rd Yukon Legislative Assembly, which convened on March 25, adjourned on May 15, 2014.

The Legislative Assembly is scheduled to reconvene later this year.

The session dates will be announced two weeks before the session begins.

Today U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy announced the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing related to campaign finance next month.

On June 3, the full committee will focus on Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment granting Congress and the states power to regulate money in political elections.

Leahy argues in his press release, “The hearing comes on the heels of the Court’s McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision, in which five justices reversed long-standing precedent and declared aggregate limits on campaign contributions in elections to be unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Coupled with the destructive Citizens United decision of 2010, … Congress must respond.”

SJR 19 was introduced by Sen. Tom Udall and has 40 cosponsors.

Two campaign finance bills affecting local elections in British Columbia were passed last week by the Legislative Assembly.

On May 1, Bill No. 20, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, and Bill No. 21, Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, were passed after the third readings. The new laws will require, among other changes, third party advertising sponsors to register with Election B.C., report expenditures and contributions of $50 or more, and clearly identify themselves in any election advertisement.

The legislation will become effective after royal assent.

Photo of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly building courtesy of KirinX on Wikimedia Commons.

A lawsuit was filed in federal court this week challenging Louisiana’s $100,000 limit on contributions to political action committees (PACs).

The plaintiff in the suit is an independent expenditure-only PAC called The Fund for Louisiana’s Future. It is arguing that, because it only makes expenditures independent of any candidate, the limit violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

According to The Advocate, the PAC was created to support Sen. David Vitter’s future bid for governor or re-election bid for Senate.