The Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued an advisory opinion offering limited guidance on what type of solicitations for political contributions are permissible and what type of advertisements qualify as expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.

In Advisory Opinion 2012-27, the FEC found two of four proposed donation requests permissible. The Commission also concluded three of seven proposed advertisements did not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate.

The remaining advertising and donation requests were not decided by the FEC because it lacked the required four affirmative votes for agreement.

Trustees of the Houston Independent School District (HISD) hope to change ethics rules involving vendor contracting.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the new rules would require trustees to disclose relationships with vendors, prohibit trustees from voting on contracts where a vendor contributed $500 or more to a trustee’s political campaign, and prohibit vendors’ contributions while bidding for HISD contracts.

Last October, similar ethics changes were discussed but not implemented by HISD. The trustees are expected to vote on new policies in September.

Concord, New Hampshire Mayor Jim Bouley is calling for a review of the city’s ethics ordinance enacted just last year.

According to the Concorde Monitor, the mayor has requested the city council ask the Board of Ethics to assess the ordinance to “ensure a fair and efficient review of ethics complaints.” Two complaints filed against the mayor were recently dismissed by the board.

The next city council meeting is scheduled for tonight.

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s office has advised the Secretary of State against restricting contributions to political committees that only make independent expenditures.

While New Hampshire’s statute R.S.A. §664:4 sets contribution limits for political committees, the law does not distinguish between political committees in general and committees making only independent expenditures.

The Attorney General made this recommendation, and reviewed the current status of law concerning independent expenditures, in a letter to the Secretary of State on August 1, 2012. The Attorney General also stated in the letter that enforcement of “contributions to any political committee is a fact-specific determination that can only be made on a case-by-case basis.”

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced persons reporting electioneering communications must report the name and address of each donor giving $1,000 or more, aggregated since the first day of the preceding calendar year.

The application of this rule applies retroactively to March 30, 2012, coinciding with a court decision in Van Hollen v. FEC that ruled the current regulation, 11 C.F.R. 104.20(c)(9), is invalid.

Previously, donors were only required to be disclosed if their donations were “made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” The FEC will now consider all donors as contributors “regardless of their subjective purpose in contributing.”

As the Commission has not adopted any new regulations or explanation of its rules, and Van Hollen v FEC is still pending, the FEC outlined this requirement in a public statement issued Friday.

The New Orleans City Council has voted to call a special election on November 6 in order to fill the recently vacated District E council member’s position. District E council member Jon Johnson had resigned after pleading guilty in federal court to embezzling FEMA funds to finance his 2007 campaign for state senate. In the interim, the vacant seat will be filled by the city council in an upcoming meeting.

The council’s statement on the special election can be read here.

A ballot initiative in Montana advocating a state policy that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights because they are not human beings has been qualified by the Secretary of State for the November ballot.

Initiative No. 166, the “Prohibition on Corporate Contributions and Expenditures in Montana Elections Act,” asks voters to choose whether to charge elected and appointed officials to prohibit corporate campaign contributions and expenditures, limit political spending in elections, and, in the case of Montana’s congressional delegation, propose a joint resolution offering an amendment to the United States Constitution establishing that corporations are not human beings entitled to constitutional rights.

Included in the text of the initiative are directives for elected and appointed officials when carrying out public policy. These directives include “that the people of Montana regard money as property, not speech, … there should be a level playing field in campaign spending that allows all individuals, regardless of wealth, to express their views to one another and their government,” and the rights under the United States Constitution are the rights of human beings, “not rights of corporations.”

The Louisiana Legislature has decided not to convene a session to consider overturning Governor Bobby Jindal’s vetoes.

The veto session, which is automatically set upon a governor vetoing a bill, was scheduled for July 14. A majority of Senate members voted in writing against holding the session. A majority is required from either the House or Senate to cancel a session.

The Legislature had adjourned sine die on June 4.

The Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance is holding a public hearing on July 25. The hearing will address implementation of new and changing regulations dealing with issues such as electronic filing, transference of funds between political committees, and procedures for informational guidance requests from the office.

The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. at One Ashburton Place, Room 411, Boston. The proposed regulations can be found here.

The U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated a portion of Montana law which prohibits corporations from making independent expenditures in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.

In Western Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the Court quoted from its prior Citizens United v FEC ruling that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.”

Four of the nine Justices dissented. The dissenting opinion quoted from the dissent in Citizens United, arguing “independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions.”

The dissenting opinion also argued the Citizens United ruling should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding “that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana.”

The dissent continued, “Given the history and political landscape in Montana, [The Montana Supreme Court] concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.”

The Henderson Nevada City Council has passed a new ethics ordinance. City employees will be limited to accept no more than $50 in meals or gifts per year from entities doing business with the city.

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the ordinance additionally prohibits city employees from soliciting gifts and provides for penalties.

The ordinance does allow employees to accept tickets or admissions to charitable events or fundraisers if given prior approval.

The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) has voted unanimously to raise the inflation-adjusted limits and thresholds for political contributions beginning in 2013.

If accepted by the legislature, contributors would be able to give up to $3,800 per election to gubernatorial candidates. The contribution limits from single donors for non-gubernatorial candidates would increase from $2,600 to $3,000.

Additionally, political committee reporting thresholds for non-gubernatorial candidates and committees would increase, as would penalties for violations.

According to the press release from ELEC, gubernatorial candidates who qualify for public funding could spend a maximum of $5.6 million in primary elections and $12.2 million in general elections.

The commission has until December 15th to report to the legislature its final limits and threshold adjustments.

The ELEC 2013 Cost Index Report can be downloaded here.

U.S. Representative Adam B. Schiff has introduced a constitutional amendment to reverse the resulting outcomes of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC V. Bennett, an Arizona public financing law struck down by the Court.

The amendment, proposed in House Joint Resolution 111, reads as follows: “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the states from imposing content-neutral limitations on private campaign contributions or independent political campaign expenditures. Nor shall this Constitution prevent Congress or the states from enacting systems of public campaign financing, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased public funding.”

In his press release, Congressman Schiff said: “I have always been loath to amend the constitution, but this tragic line of reasoning by the Supreme Court has so threatened the health of our democracy that I am moved to introduce today’s amendment.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission has extended the date advisers and third-party solicitors must comply with new pay-to-play rules until April 2013.

The Commission is extending the compliance date for the ban on third-party solicitation under rule 206(4)-5 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 in order to ensure an orderly transition for third-party solicitors and advisers and as well as to provide additional time to adjust compliance policies and procedures after the transition.

Rule 206(4)-5, the “Pay to Play Rule,” prohibits an investment adviser from providing advisory services for compensation to a government client for two years after the adviser or certain of its executives or covered associates make a contribution to elected officials or candidates.

The rule also prohibits an adviser and its covered associates from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any third-party for a solicitation of advisory business from any government entity on behalf of such adviser, unless such third-party was an SEC-registered investment adviser or a registered broker or dealer subject to pay to play restrictions adopted by a registered national securities association.

More information can be found here.