A bill requiring lobbyists to disclose work as campaign consultants passed in the Texas Legislature on May 9.

House Bill 1422 requires individuals registering as lobbyists with the state to include the full name and address of each person who compensates or reimburses the registrant, or person acting as an agent for the registrant, for services, including political consulting services, rendered by the registrant from:

• A political contribution;
• Interest received from a political contribution; or
• An asset purchased with a political contribution.

The legislation has been sent to Governor Rick Perry. If not vetoed, the bill will become law with or without his signature.

The Bergen County New Jersey Board of Chosen Freeholders passed an ordinance yesterday modifying the county’s pay-to-play laws.

NorthJersey.com reports the Board voted 6-1 in favor of changes to the code that include lowering the debarment period for future county contracts from four years to one year. Contractors will also be able to make political contributions up to $5,200 to county political parties.

The ordinance must next go to County Executive Kathleen Donovan. Executive Donovan vetoed prior pay-to-play measures last year. If the ordinance is not vetoed, or if a veto is overridden, it will become effective 20 days after publication.

Freeholder Maura DeNicola cast the single vote against the ordinance, calling it “an incumbent protection program” according to NorthJersey.com.

A precept for a special election for State Representative in Hillsborough County District 14 (Manchester Ward 7) was approved on May 1 by New Hampshire Governor Margaret Hassan and the Executive Council.

The primary election will be held on September 17 followed by a special general election on November 5. If there is only one candidate running from each party, there will be no primary election and the special election will be held on September 17.

Additionally, in the election for State Representative in Sullivan County District 4 (Claremont Ward 2), only one candidate from each party filed to participate in that election. The special election date has been changed from July 23 to June 4, the date previously scheduled for that special election’s primary.

The Massachusetts Office of Campaign & Political Finance (OCPF) is holding a public hearing on May 8 concerning proposed updates to regulations regarding campaign finance disclosure.

The hearing will address revised provisions to the existing code and a new regulatory section “concerning the identification of funding sources for tax exempt and other organizations that raise funds to make contributions or independent expenditures”.

Additional OCPF proposals include addressing the use of a candidate’s legal defense fund, clarifying subvendor reporting requirements, and amending provisions concerning credit and debit card contributions. The draft regulations are available here.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued a unanimous Advisory Opinion concluding same-sex couples married under state law are precluded from making joint federal political contributions from an individual bank account.

A same-sex couple married under Massachusetts law sought to make a political contribution to Dan Winslow, a candidate for the United States Senate.

The contribution check included instructions to attribute the contribution separately and equally between both individuals, even though the check was drawn from one of the individual’s bank account.

11 C.F.R. 110.1(i) provides spouses a legal exception to the prohibition on making a contribution in the name of another person. However, the term “spouse” is not defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 or the Commission’s regulations.

The Commission relied the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) interpretation of spouse referring “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife”.

In AO 2013-02, the FEC concluded DOMA prohibits applying the exception under 11 C.F.R. 110.1(i). The Commission distinguished a contribution made from a joint account, rather than an individual account, in a footnote to the opinion, noting, “Same-sex couples (whether married under state law or not) may as joint account holders make contributions in a manner similar to that afforded spouses under 11 C.F.R. 110.1(i).”

The Commission concluded its analysis and conclusions “may be affected by subsequent developments in the law including, but not limited to, statutes, regulations, advisory opinions, and case law”.

Leaders of corporations, unions, and other organizations responsible for independent political advertisements may have to be identified if a bill introduced in the U.S. Senate yesterday passes.

Senate Bill 791 was introduced jointly by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). The bi-partisan bill, called The Follow the Money Act of 2013, requires entities, regardless of tax status, to identity the funders of any political activity in which the entity engages.

An organization involved in political activity not regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act will also be subject to a separate set of Internal Revenue Service penalties, including the possible loss of its federal tax exemption.

The Federal Election Commission will be required to replace quarterly reporting with a more frequent reporting schedule and will be required to disclose the information to the general public upon receipt.

Senator Wyden’s press release can be found here.

Video courtesy of Sen. Wyden’s YouTube channel.

The Massachusetts Lobbyist Section of Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office has informed lobbyists it will reinterpret a reporting requirement in order to comply with a court order.

Initially, Secretary of State William Galvin’s office had asserted it had the authority to interpret “all direct business associations with public officials” under state law expansively and require lobbyists disclose the names of all officials with whom a lobbyist has communicated. In reaction, a lawsuit had been 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. A Superior Court Judge ruled against the secretary.

To comply with the court’s order, the secretary will now require disclosure of the names of public officials to whom a lobbyist has made a lobbying communication only if the lobbyist also has a direct business association with the public official. Following the court’s order, the secretary informed lobbyists this means a joint enterprise or transaction of a commercial or financial nature directly by or between the lobbyist and the public official.

The Lobbyist Section has rescinded all correction and rejection notices inconsistent with this interpretation of business association.

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.