Some federal employees and interest groups are asking lawmakers to lower the cap on non-Department of Defense (DOD) contractor compensation.

Yesterday, in a letter addressed to leaders of the Senate and House Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittees, a coalition of 11 public interest, government accountability, research, and labor groups urged a reduction in the maximum allowable compensation to $400,000 for non-DOD contract employees.

Referring to a Senate version of the 2013 Financial Services Appropriations Bill that is being considered by Congress, the letter argues the cap is needed for “fiscal responsibility and fairness.” The petitioners submit the increase in allowable governmental compensation to contractors has “outpaced inflation by 53 percent” in the last 12 years while the salaries for government employees, the military workforce, and elected officials has stagnated or been frozen.

The letter reasons, “It is grossly unfair to expect working people to pay for the inflated salaries for contractor employees.”

Initiative 166 passed yesterday, charging Montana’s officials to implement a policy that corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights.

The initiative is a reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Additionally, Montana’s congressional delegation is now charged with offering an amendment to the United States constitution which would overturn the Citizens United decision, establish that corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights, establish that campaign contributions and expenditures by corporations be prohibited at any level of government, and achieve “a level playing field in election spending.”

The initiative also directs the state’s elected and appointed officials to regard “money as property, not speech.”

Voters rejected changing Arizona’s primary election system to a top-two structure.

Proposition 121 would have allowed primary elections in which all voters, regardless of party affiliation, vote in a single and combined primary. The top two vote-getters for each seat would then have advanced to a general election ballot. The proposition would not have affected elections where no party affiliation appears on a ballot.

Voters also rejected a proposition aimed squarely at the judicial department. Proposition 115 would have increased the term length of judges and raised their retirement ages.

The proposition additionally included procedural changes, such as requiring court decisions to be published online, requiring the Supreme Court to send copies of judicial performance reviews for each judge who is up for retention to the legislature, and allowing a joint legislative committee to meet and take testimony on justices and judges up for retention.

A Federal District Court has held Congress may constitutionally bar federal contractors from contributing to candidates, parties, and their committees.

Finding in favor of the Federal Election Committee (FEC), the United States District Court for The District of Columbia granted a summary judgment on Friday, November 2.

In Wagner v. FEC, the Court rejected challenges to the constitutionality of section 441c of Title 2 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits any vendors with contracts with the federal government from making political contributions to federal candidates or political parties.

The case, initially brought by the ACLU, asked the Court to declare the law unconstitutional as applied to individuals who have personal services contracts with federal agencies. Because federal workers who are not contractors may make federal political contributions, while contractors performing the same work may not, the suit argued section 441c violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

The Court found no First Amendment or Equal-Protection violations, noting “the dissimilar roles of contractors and employees, moreover, justify the distinct regulatory schemes that the Government has fashioned.”

Because of the state of emergency declared in advance of Hurricane Sandy, the Massachusetts Office of Campaign & Political Finance (OCPF) has issued a notice extending the due date of pre-election reports until 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, October 30, 2012. Reports covering activity from August 20 to October 19 were to be due October 29.

Although its office is closed today, the OCPF notice states, “Office staff will be checking their office voice mail during the day on Monday and will be returning calls to assist filers as they are able.”

Two separate pay-to-play ordinances were proposed at yesterday’s meeting of the Jersey City Council. While one proposal was not approved by the council, the remaining ordinance will be considered for a final vote on November 14, 2012.

The surviving ordinance expands the existing pay-to-play law by placing restrictions on vendors contracting with the city from contributing to Board of Education candidates.

Aerial photo of Jersey City courtesy of Creative Commons on Wikipedia.

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court denied an application to vacate the stay allowing Montana to enforce its political contribution limits.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had stayed a District Court’s decision ruling certain state contribution limits unconstitutional and unenforceable. The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

The case is pending in the Court of Appeals.

Certain Arizona statutes requiring registration and reporting by political committees are unconstitutional, according to a ruling made by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen on October 10, 2012. Presently, however, reporting is still required, according to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary’s office e-mailed registered political committees the following: “By way of gentle reminder, the recent trial court decision in ‘Committee for Justice and Fairness v. the Secretary of State’ does NOT affect the requirements to file campaign finance reports.”

In deciding whether a television advertisement made by the Committee for Justice & Fairness (CJF) was “express advocacy” or issue-oriented speech, and therefore requiring registration and reporting by CJF as a political committee, the county court found, “A.R.S. §§16–901, –901.01, –902.01, –913, and related statutes are unconstitutional.”

The Secretary of State will appeal the ruling, according the Verde Independent.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 41 page opinion explaining its continuing stay of a lower court’s decision ruling certain statutory contribution limits in Montana were unconstitutional and unenforceable.

On October 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

On October 9, after the District Court had denied a request to stay its Order, the Court of Appeals reinstated Montana’s campaign contribution limits, overruling the District Court. The District Court was ordered to outline the reasoning for its decision.

The next day, on October 10, the District Court issued a 38 page Opinion and Order detailing its reasoning. The Court of Appeals has rejected the District Court’s arguments, concluding “the state is likely to succeed on appeal.”

James. W. Murry, the Commissioner of Political Practices, has stated “that contribution limits are in effect and will be enforced.”

Tomorrow at a public hearing at its offices at 11:00am, the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) will consider proposed changes to the administrative code allowing for electronic filing for lobbyists’ annual reports.

Electronic filing would be mandatory through ELEC’s website and would replace the requirement to file paper copies. Copies of what a lobbyist files electronically must be retained by the lobbyist. The proposed amendments cover governmental affairs agents, represented entities, and representatives of “persons communicating with the general public.” The proposals also make technical changes, such as substituting “represented entity” for “lobbyist” throughout the relevant sections.

Other issues to be addressed at the meeting include proposed amendments concerning campaign cost index adjustments and personal financial disclosure statements by candidates.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Montana’s campaign contribution limits under Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216, overruling the District Court. The District Court is ordered to outline the reasoning for its decision, according to AP reports.

On October 3, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

Yesterday, the District Court had denied a request to stay its Order, according to the Independent Record. The Attorney General and the Commissioner had appealed the October 3 Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Even though the District Court has ruled some of Montana’s political contribution limits unconstitutional, the Commissioner of Political Practices wants candidates and political donors to stick to the statutory restrictions.

On October 5, Commissioner James W. Murry issued a statement “strongly recommend[ing] that candidates, political committees, and contributors abide by the contribution limitations that are provided in the statute.”

In his statement, the Commissioner said, “This office will continue to review Judge Lovell’s October 3rd Order as well as any additional orders issued by the courts to determine the current status of the laws relating to campaign contributions.”

UPDATE: Today, the Commissioner has issued an additional statement regarding the Court of Appeal’s decision: “The result of the Ninth Circuit order is that contribution limits are in effect and will be enforced.”

An ordinance passed last week to alter Bergen County, New Jersey’s pay-to-play law was vetoed by County Executive Kathleen A. Donovan on Friday.

The Board of Chosen Freeholders had voted to remove much of the current ordinance’s disclosure requirements, requiring reporting only of contributions made to candidates for county offices. The existing pay-to-play ordinance, just passed in December of 2011, requires contractors report their contributions to candidates on the municipal, county, state, and federal level.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will not be creating any new regulations to address contribution disclosure requirements connected to electioneering communications, at least on its own accord.

Yesterday, the Commission was unable to achieve the requisite four votes needed to initiate rulingmaking in response to a federal court order. In Center for Individual Freedom v. Van Hollen, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the FEC, under the jurisdiction of the District Court, to decide whether the Commission would pursue rulemaking addressing the issues raised concerning 11 C.F.R. §104.20(c)(9) or defend its current regulation in court.

Currently, 11 C.F.R. §104.20(c)(9) requires disclosure only of those making contributions over $1,000 to an entity explicitly for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications. The lawsuit argues the current rule contradicts the statute requiring disclosure of all donors making contributions over $1,000.

The FEC counsel has filed a status report advising the District Court that the Commission “does not intend to pursue a rulemaking and that it will continue to defend 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9) before the Court.”

Separate statements have been issued by Commissioners Ellen L. Weintraub, Cynthia L. Bauerly, and Steven T. Walther .

A Federal Court has ruled Montana’s contribution limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

On October 3, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

The Court has enjoined the state from enforcing the provisions of the code relating to limiting political contributions.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock issued the following statement: “In declaring our campaign contribution limits unconstitutional, a federal judge has effectively put Montana’s elections up for auction to the highest bidder. My office will aggressively pursue all legal remedies available to overturn this decision, including filing an emergency stay before the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals —the court which upheld Montana’s contribution limits just a decade ago.”