In the 2012 Annual report issued by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) on April 15, the Commission listed several recommendations and ideas to strengthen the state’s campaign finance and lobbying laws.

ELEC recommends requiring disclosure from super PACs and non-profit groups organized under Section 527 and Section 501(c) of the IRS code, requiring disclosure of lobbying activity by local vendors who are required to report pay-to-play contributions, and expanding the 48-hour notice requirement for continuing PAC expenditures to require the filing of notices for expenditures made in May municipal, runoff, school, and special elections.

Among its other recommendations, ELEC calls for the state to expand the regulation of “wheeling” to include contributions by county political party committees to other county political party committees during the entire year.

In the report, the Commission also lists general ideas to strengthen the laws, including requiring grassroots lobbying materials to list the name and address of the committee paying for the material, increasing penalties for public financing violations, and banning the use of partnership funds for the purpose of making contributions.

The annual report can be found here.

A bill raising the limits of political contributions to candidates in Arizona has been signed into law.

On April 11, Governor Janice K. Brewer signed House Bill 2593, allowing increases in contribution amounts individuals and some political committees may make to candidates.

Individuals and noncertified political committees will be able to give $2,500 to candidates running for Arizona local, legislative, and statewide offices. Committees certified by the secretary of state to give at the upper limit can contribute up to $5,000 to a statewide candidate.

The bill removes the aggregate contribution limitations for individuals and some political committees. The law will take effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns sine die.

A special election for the state representative for Sullivan County District 4 (Claremont Ward 2) will be held on July 23, 2013.

A special primary election for the office is scheduled for June 4, 2013. The elections are being held to fill the seat of Representative Tom Donovan, who resigned earlier this year.

Photo of the New Hampshire State House by AlexiusHoratius on Wikipedia.

The United States Supreme Court has decided to hear a case challenging the aggregate federal limits for a person making contributions to candidates, party committees, and PACs. The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), is expected to be argued and decided during the Court’s next term, which begins in October, 2013.

The plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, is an Alabama businessman who regularly makes political contributions to Republican candidates and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Mr. McCutcheon wishes to contribute $26,200 more to candidates and committees than the aggregate ceiling would allow. However, he is not challenging the limits on contributions to individual candidates and entities. Mr. McCutcheon wants to give to more candidates and political entities. The RNC is also a plaintiff in the suit.

Federal law imposes two types of limits on individual political contributions, base limits and biennial limits.

Base limits restrict the amount an individual may contribute to:

• A candidate committee;
• A national party committee;
• A state, local, and district party committee; and
• A political action committee.

Biennial limits restrict the aggregate amount an individual may contribute biennially, using the 2011-2012 election cycle limits argued against in the lawsuit, as follows:

• $46,200 to candidate committees; and
• $70,800 to all other committees, of which no more than $46,200 may go to non-national party committees (e.g., state parties and PACs).

The plaintiffs are only challenging the overall limits (the biannual limits) and not the base limits.

The attorneys for McCutcheon and the RNC argue the two-year ceilings federal law sets on what an individual can contribute during a campaign are unconstitutional. Specifically, they assert the limits on contributions violate a contributor’s right to free speech; the limits for biennial contributions are too low; and the distinction between contributions and expenditures articulated in the 1976 US Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo are no longer applicable because of the changes in campaign finance laws over the last 30 years. Buckley v. Valeo allowed for government regulation of contributions to prevent political corruption and prohibited government regulation of expenditures because of First Amendment protections.

Unlike Citizens United v FEC, which concerned political expenditures, McCutcheon v. FEC addresses contribution limits. Additionally, this case does not involve the political contributions or expenditures of corporations.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its audit of federal lobbying compliance for 2012. For the audit, the GAO reviewed a random sample of 100 quarterly disclosure reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2011 and the first and second quarters of calendar year 2012.

Among its findings, the GAO concluded 97 percent of filers of lobbying disclosure reports were able to provide documentation to support reported income and expenses, 85 percent filed the required federal political campaign reports, and 74 percent of the reported income and expenses were properly rounded to the nearest $10,000. The audit also found at least 15 percent of all lobbying disclosure reports did not properly disclose formerly held covered positions.

The 47 page report, released on April 1, 2013, is titled “2012 Lobbying Disclosure Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements” and can be found here.

On March 21, 2013, the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) issued an advisory opinion deciding it does not have the jurisdiction to declare contribution limits unenforceable or unconstitutional for political committees making only independent expenditures.

Advisory Opinion 01-2013 holds current state registration and reporting requirements and contribution limits apply to political committees making independent expenditures.

Fund for Jobs and Growth, a political organization not registered in the state and intending to make independent expenditures in the state’s 2013 elections, requested the opinion in order to determine whether it needed to register and report with the state and whether the state contributions limits for political committees applied to its fundraising activity. The organization was held to be a political committee requiring registration and reporting.

While holding state contribution limits apply, the opinion notes several other jurisdictions have held contribution limits applied to political committees making independent expenditures are unconstitutional. ELEC did not find “that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has addressed these issues, nor has the United States Supreme Court issued a specific determination concerning the constitutionality of contribution limits for political committees making only independent expenditures.”

Yesterday a bill was introduced into the Nevada Assembly establishing for lobbyists both a mandatory code of ethics and voluntary rules of conduct. The code of ethics addresses inaccurate information given to members of the Legislature and conflicts of interests with clients.

In addition, the code of ethics in Assembly Bill 0314 specifically addresses lobbyist contracts, including requiring compensated lobbyists to enter into a written contract with clients spelling out the amount of compensation, and requiring the contract to include provisions concerning whether and how, if applicable, expenses of the lobbyist will be reimbursed.

The bill creates a “Rules of Conduct” statement to be given to a lobbyist upon registration. The lobbyist may voluntarily sign the statement if he or she wishes. Additionally, the legislation requires the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau to provide training on the Nevada Ethics in Lobbying Act before each regular and special session of the Nevada Legislature.

AB 0314 would also require the suspension of a lobbyist’s registration for certain violations and sets forth the periods for which a lobbyist’s registration must be suspended.

A bill introduced on March 12, 2013 by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution overturning the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. FEC.

The amendment is divided into four sections. The first section declares because the right to vote belongs only to “natural persons as citizens of the United States”, political contributions and expenditures may only be made by “natural persons”.

The second section affirmatively grants Congress and the States power to regulate campaign finance laws. Sen. Sanders’ fact sheet explaining the amendment states, “This [second] section overturns the Buckley v. Valeo (1976) ‘money is speech’ decision allowing individuals – including individuals who are candidates – to spend unlimited sums of money independent of candidates.”

The remaining two sections explicitly state the amendment does not limit the freedom of the press and that Congress and the States will have the power to enforce the amendment through their legislative powers. Sen. Sanders’ press release can be found here. U.S. Representative Ted Deutch has filed this same amendment, House Joint Resolution 34, in the House.

Today the United States Supreme Court decided not to grant a review of the case of United States v. Danielczyk.

Danielczyk is a criminal case in which one of the defense arguments was the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 prohibiting direct corporate contributions to federal candidates was unconstitutional.

The U.S. District Court Judge presiding over the case had agreed with the defense and, based on Citizens United v. FEC, found corporations have an equal right to make political contributions under federal law as do human beings. The judge’s decision was reversed on appeal. The reversal on this issue of law now stands.

Today the United States Supreme Court decided to grant a review to a case challenging the aggregate limits on federal campaign contributions. The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, seeks to allow Shaun McCutcheon to make political contributions to several federal candidates exceeding the two-year aggregate limit currently set at $48,600 as provided in 2 U.S.C §441a(a)(3)(A).

Photo of Supreme Court building by UpstateNYer in Wikipedia.

This May El Paso, Texas voters will decide whether to move city elections to November or let them remain in the spring.

The City Council voted on February 14, 2013, to allow the voters to amend the city’s charter and choose the timing of future municipal elections. The council did not make any recommendation as to its preference.

If approved, the first November election would be held in 2018, according to the El Paso Times.

Montana Governor Steve Bullock and Senator Jim Peterson announced a comprehensive campaign finance initiative for the state.

The Transparency, Reporting and Accountability in Campaigns and Elections (TRACE) Act was introduced today at a joint press conference in the governor’s office.

The governor said the provisions of the bill, to be introduced by Senator Peterson, include increasing disclosure by organizations without regard to the organization’s federal tax status, prohibiting direct corporate or union contributions to candidates, and increasing disclosure requirements by corporations making independent expenditures.

The TRACE Act also increases campaign contributions: per election cycle, a candidate for governor could accept up to $2,000 from a political committee or individual, a statewide candidate could accept up to $1,000, and all other candidates could accept up to $500. Additionally, the bill increases the fine for those violating election law and requires all major donors to incidental committees be identified through disclosure.

In his press release, Governor Bullock said, “This isn’t about winning or losing elections. This is about putting our democracy back in the sunlight where [it] belongs – back firmly in the hands of ‘we the people’.”

Special election dates for a Massachusetts Senate seat and a state House seat have been announced by the Secretary of State.

The special primary election for the First Suffolk Senate District seat will be held on April 30, the same date as the special primary election for the U.S. Senate seat recently vacated by Senator John Kerry. The special general election for the Senate seat will be held on May 28.

May 28 will also be the special primary election date for the Eighth Suffolk District House seat. The special election for the house seat will be held on June 25, the same date as the special general election for the U.S. Senate.

The House election is being called to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation of Representative Martha Marty Walz. The Senate election is being called to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Jack Hart.

An argument put forth by the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office requiring lobbyists to disclose every communication with public officials “makes absolutely no sense,” wrote Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders.

Secretary of State William Galvin’s office had argued it has the authority to interpret “all direct business associations with public officials” expansively and require the names of all officials with whom a lobbyist has communicated. In reaction, a lawsuit was brought against the Secretary of State’s office by the ACLU, AirStrategies, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Common Cause, and the Conservation Law Foundation.

According to the Boston Herald, the arguments in favor of the disclosure requirement were dismissed by the judge in her decision.