A federal court has pushed back Texas’s primary date from April 3 to May 29.

Additionally, the Texas general primary runoff election has also changed to July 31 from June 5.

A three judge panel from the US District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, having entered redistricting plans for the 2012 elections for the US House of Representatives, the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas State Senate, found it necessary to make certain adjustments to the election schedule. The court’s order, issued March 1, stipulates various other changes of filing dates and deadlines for candidates and for voting activities concerning elections of federal, state, county, and local offices held in the state.

The court order also mandates that for the 2012 elections to the Texas House and Senate, a person must be a continuous resident of the district the person seeks to represent from April 9, 2012 until the date of the General Election.

The court’s order can be found, via the website Texas Redistricting.

In the spring of 2011, a draft presidential executive order was leaked to the public. The order would require every entity submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within the two years prior to submission of their offer. The disclosure requirement included contributions made to federal candidates, parties, and committees by the bidding entity, its officers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control. Contributions made to parties for independent expenditures and electioneering communications would also be reported. These disclosures would be required whenever the aggregate amount of the contributions and expenditures by the bidding entity exceed $5,000.

Reaction to the order was swift. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, writing on behalf of a coalition of more than 80 business groups and trade associations, strongly protested the proposed executive order. Meanwhile, a letter in support of the order, signed by more than 30 public interest groups, urged full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures by federal government contractors. U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo sent a letter to President Obama, signed by more than 60 members of the House, in support of the proposed executive order.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Small Business Committee held a joint hearing to examine the order, evaluate its impact and consequences on the federal acquisition system, and determine whether it introduced politics into the procurement process. Bills opposing the proposed order were introduced in both the House and the Senate. Finally, a compromise amendment, precluding an executive agency from requiring a vendor bidding on a contract to disclose political contributions, was added to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012. The act passed and was signed by President Obama at the end of 2011.

Passage of the bill did not end calls for disclosures of political contributions from federal contractors, however. Petitions with more than 100,000 signatures were submitted by Public Citizen and MoveOn.org to the White House, urging the President to require federal contractors to disclose their political contributions after the bidding process is completed and a federal contract is awarded.

Utah Representative Kraig Powell has introduced a bill prohibiting anonymous cash contributions over $50 and requiring forfeiture of the contributions.

As written in HB 493, anonymous contributions over $50 to state and local candidates must be given to the governmental entity where the position the candidate is pursuing exists, such as to a school district’s general fund for a local school board candidate. Other beneficiaries of the anonymous political donations over $50 would be the state’s general fund, and county and municipality general funds.

Reporting by the candidates of the transferred anonymous contribution would not be required.

The Texas Ethics Commission announced there is no requirement to file the 30-day pre-election report due March 5th.

Normally, committees such as general and specific-purpose political committees that support or oppose a candidate or measure must file reports 30 days before an election in which the committee is involved, covering the first day after the period covered by the last report through 40 days before the election.

The Ethics Commission lifted the requirement because there is no ballot for the April 3rd election. The state’s primary election dates will likely be changed once redistricting in Texas has been finalized.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) released its annual adjustment of the threshold limit for lobbyist bundling disclosure.

The federal lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold has been increased from $16,200 for 2011 to $16,700 for 2012.

The FEC is required to adjust the threshold amount annually to account for inflation, rounding to the nearest multiple of $100.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding the state’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures, related to a candidate, by a corporation.

In December of last year, the Montana Supreme Court found Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, concluding the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions. The Montana Court emphasized the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling stays the state Court’s ruling until either a formal appeal to the US Supreme Court is denied, or, if an appeal is accepted, the US Supreme Court mandates the termination of the stay.

In the one page order by the US Supreme Court, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in [Citizens United v. FEC], make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.’ A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

Associate Justice Steven G. Breyer joined in Justice Ginsburg’s statement.

Photo of the United States Supreme Court building frieze by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

This afternoon Rhode Island Governor Lincoln D. Chafee announced the upcoming introduction of a bill requiring those engaged in “independent expenditures” and “electioneering communications” to report donors and expenditures and to include disclaimers on media and internet advertising.

The Governor’s bill, Transparency in Political Spending Act (TIPS), was created with legislative leaders and Common Cause Rhode Island.

The Governor’s press release detailing the bill defines “independent expenditure” is an expenditure that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and is not coordinated with any candidate’s campaign, authorized candidate committee or political party committee. “Electioneering communications” is defined as print, broadcast, cable, satellite, or electronic media communications not coordinated with any candidate, authorized candidate committee or political party committee which unambiguously identifies a candidate and is made within 60 days of a general or special election or within 30 days of a primary and can be received by 5,000 or more persons in the constituency.

Governor Chafee said, “[TIPS] seeks to [make] individuals and organizations trying to influence the outcome of an election accountable to the people of Rhode Island.” The collaboratively developed legislation was announced by the Governor with Common Cause Rhode Island’s Executive Director, John Marion, and the legislation’s sponsors: House Speaker Gordon Fox, Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed, Senate President Pro Tempore Juan Pichardo, and Representative Chris Blazejewski.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has made legislative proposals to enhance the state’s ethic rules.

In advance of the start of the legislative session next month, the Governor has staked out the areas of Louisiana’s ethic system he believes need the most attention, including making the process of appealing late filing fees unambiguous.

Among his other proposals are making a clearer distinction between the duties and jurisdictions of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board and the Board of Ethics, granting the Board of Ethics some ability to appeal Ethics Adjudicatory Board decisions, and clearly articulating which board is being referenced when a statute merely refers to a ‘board’.

The proposals, included in a press release from the Governor, also include a call for the Ethics Board to suspend the one year dismissal rule in certain circumstances during an investigation of a possible ethics violation.

Photo of the Louisiana State Capitol by Bluepoint951 on Wikipedia.

A Montana Supreme Court’s decision upholding the state’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate, in spite of Citizens United v. FEC, has been appealed to the US Supreme Court.

According to the SCOTUSblog, Justice Kennedy has called for a response from the state of Montana by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, February 15.

For a detailed explanation of the appeal, see Lyle Denniston’s article on SCOTUSblog at http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/new-citizens-united-sequel-2.

In December of last year, the Montana Supreme Court found Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act.

In the Court’s majority opinion in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana, the Court wrote, “The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The Court concluded the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions, emphasizing the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

In making its argument, the decision asserts that a “material factual distinction between the present case and Citizens United is the extent of the regulatory burden imposed by the challenged law.” The Court found in contrast to the “complexity and ambiguity” of restrictions for federal PACs, PACs formed and maintained in the state are “easily implemented” by the filing of “simple and straight-forward forms or reports.”

Attorney James Bopp, Jr., counsel of record for the petitioner, argues for the US Supreme Court to summarily reverse the Montana decision, writing, “The lower court’s refusal to follow Citizens United is such an obvious, blatant disregard of its duty to follow this Court’s decisions that summary reversal is proper.”

U.S. Congressman Chris Van Hollen has introduced a campaign finance bill in the House called DISCLOSE 2012 Act.

Like the similarly entitled bill introduced and defeated in 2010, House Resolution 4010, the Disclosure of Information on Spending on Campaigns Leads to Open and Secure Elections Act of 2012, aims to increase the reporting requirements of political expenditures and contributions by corporations and other outside groups.

Corporations, unions, and other groups, will be required to report certain campaign-related activity to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), to disclose their campaign-related expenditures to their shareholders and members, and to make their political spending available to the public, through a hyper-link to the FEC, on their websites.

In his press release, Congressman Van Hollen states, “I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation – if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from the DISCLOSE 2012 Act.”

Additionally, the bill also requires lobbyists to disclose their political expenditures in their lobbying disclosure reports in conjunction with the report of their lobbying activities.

Last night the U.S. House removed all registration requirements by those conducting political intelligence activities from the Senate’s Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which passed the Senate last week with a bi-partisan vote of 96 to 3.

The original Senate Bill 2038, now in the house, expanded the Lobbyist Disclosure Act to include requiring registration and reporting from those conducting political intelligence activities, which was defined as “political intelligence contacts and efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation and planning activities, research, and other background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with such contacts and efforts of others.”

While the House also made other changes to the bill, the only reference to the removal of the reporting and registration requirements made by Congressman Eric Cantor in a press release issued last night stated, “Tonight, we will introduce a strengthened and expanded STOCK Act, and remove provisions that would have made the bill unworkable or raised more questions then they answered.”

If passed as changed in the House, the bill would have to return to the Senate for another vote. The current version of Senate Bill 2038 can be found here.

Photo of the U.S. Capitol by Florian Hirzinger on Wikipedia.

A New Jersey state appellate court has reaffirmed the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) has the authority to enforce the state’s campaign finance laws.

In Nordstorm v. Lyon, the Appellate Division reversed a lower court’s decision not to defer to ELEC’s jurisdiction for enforcement of campaign contributions and reporting violations.

In affirming the power of ELEC, the Appellate Division held, “We reach our conclusion that ELEC has exclusive jurisdiction regarding reporting violations because of the overarching legislative goals of (1) guaranteeing transparency of campaign contributions and expenditures, (2) ensuring that disclosures of the same be managed and controlled by a single agency, and (3) implementing remedies for violations of the Reporting Act through a uniform and predictable system of sanctions.”

The case arose following a close Republican Party primary election for Morris County Freeholder between William “Hank” Lyon and Margaret Nordstrom. In its press release, ELEC Executive Director Jeff Brindle said if the lower court ruling had not been overturned, “it would have subjected candidates and committees to inconsistent application of the Campaign Reporting Act in enforcement actions.’’

Jim Murry has been chosen as the next Montana Commissioner of Political Practices.

According to the Great Falls Tribune, Governor Brian Schweitzer made the decision yesterday after meeting with Mr. Murry, who begins working as the Commissioner today.

The previous Commissioner, David Gallik, abruptly left the position after questions arose concerning whether Mr. Gallik was conducting his private law practice while at the government office.

Among its other duties, the Commissioner’s office monitors and enforces lobbyist registration and disclosure, campaign finance practices, and ethics standards among state officials.

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate passed a bill which expands the Lobbyist Disclosure Act to include those conducting political intelligence activities.

Senate Bill 2038, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, defines the term ‘political intelligence activities’ to mean “political intelligence contacts and efforts in support of such contacts, including preparation and planning activities, research, and other background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts, and coordination with such contacts and efforts of others.”

‘Political intelligence contact’ is defined to mean oral, written, and electronic communication to covered executive and legislative branch officials intended for use in analyzing securities or commodities markets, or in informing investment decisions.

The lobbyist registration and disclosure requirements would be required by both political intelligence consultants and political intelligence firms, also defined in the bill.

The U.S. House version of the bill, House Resolution 1148, also called the STOCK Act, contains similar requirements.