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.

The Monmouth County Board of Freeholders has rescinded its three year old pay-to-play regulations.

County resolution 2012-0071 repeals resolution 08-397, which created pay-to-play and vendor disclosure rules that overlapped with the state’s law.

The Board determined the county’s pay-to-play resolution caused confusion among those seeking or performing business within the county.

Without its own ordinance, the county will now only follow New Jersey’s current pay-to-play laws.

Petitions with more than 100,000 signatures have been submitted to the White House urging the president to require federal contractors to disclose political contributions.

Last spring a leaked draft executive order requiring vendors submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose political contributions and expenditures resulted in both fervent support and opposition. A compromise amendment was inserted into the 565-page National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012, which passed in December, precluding federal agencies from requiring vendors bidding on federal contracts to disclose political contributions.

In their press release arguing for full transparency of corporate political spending, Public Citizen and MoveOn.org explained its petitions are asking for disclosures after the contracts are awarded.

For previous articles on Lobby Comply by George Ticoras on this topic, you can read posts from May 10, May 12, May 20, June 1, July 28, 2011, and January 5, 2012.

Photo of the The White House by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

A New Jersey law prohibiting candidates for elective public office from accepting political contributions on public property has been expanded.

Senate Bill 3166, which has been signed into law and is effective immediately, amends state law to prevent the solicitation or contribution of political donations to candidates and officeholders on various public properties.

The prohibited properties include any property owned by any county, municipality, board of education of a school district, fire district, authority, or other state or local entity, district or instrumentality.

The new law also grants jurisdiction to the Election Law Enforcement Commission to enforce this rule.

Arizona Senator David Schapira has introduced a bill removing the lobbyists gift exception for entertainment and for some athletic events.

The Democratic Minority leader’s bill, SB 1068, amends the current law by removing the exception for expenditures of entertainment and athletic events provided to officials by lobbyists.

Sporting events would still be a permitted expenditure if the event is sponsored by a school district governing board, a community college district governing board, or any institution under the jurisdiction of the Arizona board of regents.

Photo of Arizona Senator David Schapira by DShippy on Wikipedia.

Federal campaign contributions are prohibited from individuals living in the U.S. but not admitted for permanent residency, the Supreme Court affirmed today.

The Supreme Court, through a summary disposition, upheld a lower court ruling finding aliens who are in the United States on temporary work visas may not make political contributions to federal candidates or political parties, as proscribed in 2 U.S.C. §441e and its implementing regulations.

Bluman v FEC was brought on behalf of two plaintiffs, a doctor in residency and a recent law school graduate, both citizens of other countries. They argued the Court’s earlier Citizens United v FEC decision mandated allowing financial political contributions by the plaintiffs as part of their protected free speech.

In upholding the law and denying the plaintiff the relief they sought, the lower court had written in its decision, “It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.”

Today’s one-line summary disposition by the Supreme Court affirms the lower court’s holding without judicial opinion.

Photo of the U.S. Supreme Court Building by Joe Ravi on Wikipedia.

A new law signed by President Obama precludes federal agencies from requiring vendors bidding on federal contracts to disclose political contributions.

Buried in the 565-page National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012, House Resolution 1540, is language amending Chapter 137 of Title 10 of the United States Code.

The amendment explicitly prohibits requiring a contractor to submit political information as part of a solicitation, or a request for bid or proposal. It also bars contractors from being required to submit political information during the modifications of a contract, or while exercising a contract option.

The language was added as an amendment to HR 1540 in response to a leaked draft executive order which required 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.

For previous articles on Lobby Comply by George Ticoras on this topic, you can read posts from June 1, May 20, May 12, and May 10, and July 28, 2011.

The Montana Supreme Court has held the state law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate is constitutional.

Finding Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, the majority opinion of the Montana Supreme Court in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana states, “The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The Court concludes 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.”