New Jersey Senate Republican Leader Tom Kean, Jr. is introducing legislation applying the state’s pay-to-play laws to labor unions.

According to the Senator’s press release, his bill applies the same restrictions on campaign contributions and activities to labor unions under contract with state, county, and municipal governmental entities as are currently applied to government service providers.

“Pay to play reform was passed to limit the influence of big spending contractors over the public officials from whom they are trying to obtain work. That law missed one of the biggest recipients of public dollars and thus, must be fixed in the interest of fairness and honesty,” argues Senator Kean.

Photo of New Jersey Senator Tom Kean, Jr. courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

The Bergen County, New Jersey Board of Chosen Freeholders issued a memorandum clarifying its pay-to-play ordinance adopted last year.

In the section of the ordinance concerning the prohibition on awarding contracts to certain contributors, the phrase “any candidate for elective office in the County of Bergen or holder of elective office in the County of Bergen” is used.

The Board’s memorandum states the phrase is limited to persons “who run for, or are elected to” county offices. The phrase does not include candidates for a municipal office held in the county, statewide candidates for the Assembly or Senate, or federal candidates whose district includes Bergen County.

More information can be found at the Corporate Political Activity Law Blog.

On April 30, 2012, the Lobbyists Registration Act came into force in the Canadian province of Manitoba. The act requires lobbyists to file returns using an electronic registry system. Although the act was originally passed in 2008, it came into force only this year upon proclamation, allowing the lobbyist registrar the opportunity to create the system with its online component.

The act categorizes lobbyists as either consultant lobbyists or in-house lobbyists. Consultant lobbyists are individuals who, for pay or other benefit, undertake to lobby on behalf of a client. An in-house lobbyist is defined as an employee, partner, or sole proprietor of an organization who lobbies, or has a duty to lobby, on behalf of the organization. However, to be designated as an in-house lobbyist, an individual’s lobbying or duty to lobby has to constitute a significant part of his or her activities, which the regulations define as meeting or exceeding 100 hours annually. Additionally, if an individual’s lobbying, together with lobbying by others in the organization, meets or exceeds 100 hours annually, the senior officer of the organization must file a return.

The act defines lobby to mean communicating with a public official in an attempt to influence the development of a legislative proposal; introducing a bill or resolution before the assembly; making or amending a regulation; developing, amending, or terminating a program or policy; or awarding a financial benefit. For consultant lobbyists the definition of lobby also includes arranging a meeting with a public official or communicating with a public official in an attempt to influence the award of a contract.

Consultant lobbyists already lobbying before April 30th have 30 days to begin filing. If lobbying begins after April 30th, consultant lobbyists have 10 days to file. A senior officer filing on behalf of an organization with in-house lobbyists has two months in which to file, regardless of whether lobbying begins before or after April 30th. Additionally, the officer must file returns within two months after the end of each six-month period after filing the previous return.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) approved several advisory opinions on a variety of issues.

In AO 2012-12, the FEC allowed a corporation to solicit contributions from its non-corporate franchisees and licensees’ executive and administrative personnel. The FEC found the personnel were part of Dunkin Brands, Inc. restricted class because of the degree of control it maintained on the franchisees and licensees.

In another opinion, the FEC concluded an association of physician-owned hospitals are not federal contractors although they provided services to patients in government-sponsored healthcare programs such as Medicaid. Therefore, the association is not prohibited from making contributions to independent expenditure-only political committees.

Additionally, the FEC found a New Hampshire campaign finance statute requiring disclaimers for telephone surveys was preempted by federal statutes and FEC regulations because the calls in question were only related to federal candidates.

The FEC also let stand the $46,200 aggregate limit for contributions to federal candidates over a request to contribute amounts over this limit.

The FEC press release concerning these and other decisions can be found here.

A Federal District Court denied a preliminary injunction request demanding the Federal Election Commission (FEC) not enforce a law prohibiting individuals with federal contracts from making political contributions to federal candidates or political parties.

In Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 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 such contributions.

The case, 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.

In denying the preliminary injunction request, the Court concluded the plaintiffs do not have a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

Jeff Brindle, Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC), has renewed efforts calling for campaign finance reform, specifically concerning political contributions from contractors.

In a press release detailing public contractors’ political contributions for 2011, ELEC’s analysis concludes that while contractors are making fewer contributions directly to candidates, they are making substantially more contributions to PACs.

Director Brindle states, “In some cases, contractors may be evading the intent of pay-to-play restrictions and contribution limits by giving indirectly through these PACs. That is why the Commission has recommended making it harder for one candidate or group to establish multiple, affiliated PACs.”

Director Brindle also reiterates the Commission’s recommendation to adopt a single statewide pay-to-play law. Previous LobbyComply blog posts discusses the earlier recommendations can be found here and here.

Electronic filing of returns will be required by all consultant and in-house lobbyists in the Canadian province of Manitoba beginning April 30. The Lobbyists Registration Act, originally passed in 2008, comes into force only this year upon proclamation.

The Act outlines the registration and reporting requirements for individuals undertaking efforts to lobby the province, defines lobbyists as consultant or in-house lobbyists, establishes deadlines for filing returns, and lists which officials of the Manitoba government are covered.

User IDs and passwords will be required to file returns electronically, but will not be available for lobbyists to set up until April 30. There will be no fees for filing returns.

Penalties for violating the act can include a fine of up to $25,000.

A bill requiring lobbyists to disclose all legislation they are trying to influence will be introduced into the Delaware Senate, possibly as soon as this week.

Senate Bill 185, as proposed by Senator Anthony J. DeLuca and endorsed by Governor Jack Markell and members of both parties of the General Assembly, mandates lobbyists report to the Public Integrity Commission the identity, by number, of each bill, resolution, or regulation for which the lobbyist has tried to promote, advocate, influence, or oppose. Disclosure of the name of the employer on whose behalf such direct communication occurred is also required.

Additionally, lobbying relating to any subject contained within any budget appropriation bill or bond and capital improvement bill must also include identification of the specific subject of the direct communication. Reports will be due within five business day after the date the first direct communication with a relevant public official regarding bills, resolutions, and regulations takes place. The bill provides for electronic filing of registration and reporting with the Public Integrity Commission.

The Commission will make the reports available online in a manner which can be easily reviewed by bill, resolution, regulation, lobbyist, or employer.

A US District Court has declared a Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation regarding disclosure for “electioneering communications” invalid.

The US District Court for the District of Columbia found FEC regulation 11 CFR §104.20(c)(9), which requires disclosure only of those making contributions over $1,000 to an entity for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications, contradicts the statute which requires disclosure of all donors making contributions over $1,000.

Concluding the FEC does not have the authority to narrow the disclosure requirement required by law, the Court declared the regulation invalid by granting the plaintiff, U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen, summary judgment.

The FEC had argued for the need for the regulation after FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), which concluded corporations and labor organizations were permitted to make expenditures for electioneering communications that did not constitute express advocacy or its functional equivalent. The commission believed requiring only disclosure of funds earmarked for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications appropriately provided the public with adequate disclosure information.

Addressing this argument in the decision, District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote, “The [FEC] cannot unilaterally decide to take on a quintessentially legislative function; if sound policy suggests that the statute needs tailoring in the wake of WRTL or Citizens United, it is up to Congress to do it.”

A complaint filed with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) is asking for an investigation of whether scholarships provided to legislators by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) violate state ethics and lobbying laws.

Additionally, the complainant, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), requests an examination of whether legislators are receiving impermissible gifts while attending ALEC conferences.

In its press release, the CMD argues that while Wisconsin prohibits legislators from accepting anything of value from lobbyists or corporations that employ lobbyists, the scholarships paying for legislators’ travel to ALEC conferences are funded entirely by corporations, many of which employ lobbyists in the state.

The CMD specifically asks the board to consider

• Whether ALEC scholarships violate W.S. sections 13.625 and 19.45;

• Whether the scholarships fall under an exception in W.S. section 19.56;

• Whether legislators are appropriately disclosing the scholarships;

• Whether the scholarship fund is being used for more than reimbursement; and

• Whether legislators attending ALEC conferences are receiving other impermissible gifts such as tickets to sporting events or free food and drinks.

Exhibits attached to the complaint can be found here.

The Philadelphia Board of Ethics issued an advisory alert announcing a delay in the availability of their online filing system for receipt of lobbyist and principal’s quarterly expense reports. The board’s online expense report function will not be available by April 30, the next date the reports are due.

However, because the quarterly expense reports, covering January 3 through March 31, remain due on April 30, the board intends to create an interim paper form expense reporting method. Lobbyists and principals will be able to fill out the interim form on the board’s website, which can then be downloaded and signed. The signed copy must be mailed or delivered to the board by the same April 30 deadline.

The board will advise all registered principals when the interim reporting method becomes available.

The current registration procedure is unaffected by the board’s announcement.

A committee hearing is scheduled this week in the Senate to examine its version of the DISCLOSE Act of 2012.

Introduced last week, Senate Bill 2219, also entitled “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012”, amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs, and other entities.

A House version of the bill, H.R. 4010, introduced in February, revives a previously failed effort in 2010 to pass the legislation.

The Senate Bill 2219 hearing with the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration is scheduled for Thursday March 29 at 10 a.m.

Registered Massachusetts legislative and executive agents must schedule an appointment with the Lobbyist Section of the Public Records Division of the Secretary of the Commonwealth to have their photographs taken for their lobbyist identification card.

The photographs will be taken on Tuesdays and Wednesdays during the hours of 10 to 4pm beginning March 27 and continuing through April.

Agents must request appointments by e-mail at lob@sec.state.ma.us. Schedules will not be accepted by phone or walk-in. Agents should suggest three dates and times convenient for them in their e-mails.

All appointments will be given on a first come first serve basis.

An advisory opinion request seeking to end the current aggregate limit on the contributions an individual may make to federal candidates has been made to the Federal Election Commission.

The request, made on behalf of Shaun McCutcheon, seeks to allow him to make political contributions to several federal candidates that would exceed the two-year aggregate limit currently set at $46,200 as provided in 2 U.S.C §441a(a)(3)(A).

The primary argument in the advisory opinion request argues the limit is unconstitutional because it violates a citizen’s right to speak and to associate with not just any candidate, but every candidate of his choosing.

If the FEC grants the request, Mr. McCutcheon plans to contribute amounts of $2,500 and $1,776 to 26 federal candidates