Political contribution limit changes proposed this summer by the Montana Office of the Commissioner of Political Practices take effect today.

The adjustments affect the amount of contributions individuals, political parties, and political committees may make to candidates for the office of governor and other statewide positions.

Additionally, as also proposed this summer by the Commissioner’s office, electronic filing of reports is scheduled to begin in January.

A court in British Columbia has ruled the province cannot restrict election spending in the 60 days leading up to an official election call.

In British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), the British Columbia Court of Appeal panel upheld a lower court ruling finding portions of Election Act sections 235.1 and 228 are unconstitutional, and are of no force and effect insofar as they relate to the pre-campaign period as defined in the Act. Therefore, the court affirmed the British Columbia Attorney General cannot restrict election spending in the pre-campaign period 60 days before the election period begins.

Election advertising preceding a 28-day campaign period is considered a “pre-campaign” period. In the decision Justice Catherine Anne Ryan wrote, “[R]estricting third-party advertising during the pre-campaign period would unjustifiably interfere with third parties’ issue advocacy, lobbying activity, and other advertising endeavours unrelated to the election.”

Individuals with federal contracts should be allowed to make political contributions to federal candidates or political parties, a lawsuit filed yesterday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues.

The suit, Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges 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.

According to its press release, the ACLU is asking the Court, on behalf of the three named plaintiffs, 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 argues section 441c violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

Photo of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia courtesy of the Court’s website.

A proposed federal regulation would require mandatory privacy training for certain contractors.

Under a new rule put forward by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and NASA, contractors would be required to identify employees designing, operating or having access to government systems of records, or handling personally identifiable information.

This training would be required upon the award of a contract and at least annually thereafter. Vendors would be required to maintain records of employee training for request by the government.

This rule does not apply to commercial items. The Regulatory Secretariat is accepting comments until December 13.

The Rhode Island General Assembly is scheduled to meet tomorrow, October 18. Tomorrow’s legislative purpose concerns changes to the public pension system.

Because the Legislature has technically only been in recess, the meeting is not a special session. The Legislature will meet intermittently throughout this fall.

Photo of the Rhode Island State Capitol by Garrett A. Wollman on Wikipedia.

Today’s scheduled House Subcommittee hearing with the FEC’s Commissioners has been postponed.

The Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections has not yet chosen a new date for the hearing.

All six Commissioners from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) are slated to appear before a House Subcommittee tomorrow at 3pm.

The Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Elections has designated the scheduled meeting “Federal Election Commission: Reviewing Policies, Processes and Procedures.”

Among its other election-related duties, the Subcommittee on Elections oversees the FEC.

The Sunset Commission, a legislative body created by the Texas Legislature to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies, will seek public input during its scheduled review of the Texas Ethics Commission.

During the evaluation of the Ethics Commission’s mission and performance, submitted comments and suggestions will be accepted until the suggested date of November 21. The Sunset Commission then anticipates it will issue a report in March 2012 followed by a public hearing with testimony in April.

Based on the public input and the report, any recommendations to the legislature will be submitted at the start of its next session in January 2013.

Some of the duties the Texas Ethics Commission administers and enforces are the election code concerning political contributions, expenditures and political advertising, and lobbying registration, reports and activities.

The announcement of the review can be found here.

Photo of the Texas State Capitol by LoneStarMike on Wikipedia.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is soliciting comments for possible regulations concerning exceptions to its rules regarding disclaimers on internet communications, hoping to glean insights to keep pace with the rapidly evolving technological advances available to practitioners of campaign finance.

In its draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FEC invites comments addressing the ways that campaigns, political committees, and others use or may soon use the internet, mobile devices, and other technologies to disseminate and receive campaign and other electoral information. The Commission is also interested in possible modifications and technological alternatives to the current disclaimer requirements, and data or experiences “in purchasing, selling, or distributing small or character-limited advertisements online.”

The FEC anticipates any final rules would not become effective until after the 2011-2012 election cycle.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will no longer prohibit nonconnected political committees from accepting corporate and labor organization contributions, provided the political committee maintains and deposits those contributions into separate bank accounts.

The Commission will also not limit the amounts permissible sources can contribute to such accounts.

In an statement released by the FEC, it stated, consistent with its agreement to a stipulated order and consent judgment in Carey v. FEC, it would no longer enforce 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3), as well as any implementing regulations, against any nonconnected political committee with regard to contributions from individuals, political committees, corporations, and labor organizations under certain conditions.

A single committee may now contribute directly to candidates and political committees, and make independent expenditures, separating the funds only by using two separate bank accounts. The committee must maintain the statutory limits on the solicitation of funds used for direct contributions while it may simultaneously seek unlimited funds for use in their independent expenditures.

The FEC intends to develop new regulations and amend its reporting forms. Until that time, the Commission says committees should follow the procedures the FEC outlines in its current statement, which is located here.

This post follows up  previous articles by George Ticoras, “FEC Agrees Not to Enforce Some Laws Against NDPAC” and “One PAC Is Enough.”

An ethics reform bill heralded this summer by Massachusetts House Republicans has been blocked.

The Democratic-controlled house voted 116 to 34 today against a motion allowing House Bill 3718 out of committee for a full vote. Among the changes in the bill are the requirement lobbyists wear badges identifying themselves as such, contribution restrictions for house members, and the prohibition of house members and their staff from contacting public entities regarding pending procurement decisions.

The reform measure arose as a response to the conviction this summer of former house speaker Salvatore DiMasi on seven counts of corruption.

This post follows up a previous article by George Ticoras, “New House Ethics Rules Proposed for Massachusetts” from June 23.

Photo of the Massachusetts Statehouse by Fcb981 on Wikipedia.

Registered federal lobbyists may not serve on any boards, commissions, or similar groups created by the President, the Congress, or an Executive Branch department or agency, the Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.) has affirmed.

The O.M.B. issued its Notice of Final Guidance detailing, in a question and answer format, the limitations of federal lobbyists’ service on federal boards and commissions. The policy does not apply to full-time federal employees, state lobbyists, or employees of organizations that engage in lobbying activities. If an appointment is made pursuant to statutory authority or presidential directive by Congress or state governors, the O.M.B. encourages the appointments to be made to individuals who are not federally registered lobbyists whenever possible.

The O.M.B. policy was created at the directive of a June 18, 2010 Presidential memorandum “Lobbyists on Agency Boards and Commissions.” Federal lobbyists on boards and commission as of June 18, 2010 may serve out the remainder of their terms.

The O.M.B.’s final guidance will be effective 30 days from issuance in the Federal Register.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued an Advisory Opinion stating a “project” created by a trade association may make certain communications to the general public asking individuals to contribute directly to particular federal candidates.

The Utah Bankers Association (U.B.A.) had requested the Advisory Opinion. It intends to solicit the general public through its website and e-mail, as well as through the website of “Friends of Traditional Banking,” a project created for this purpose. There will be no coordination with any candidate and no contributions will be accepted or forwarded to federal candidate’s committees.

In Advisory Opinion 2011-14, the Commission concluded the expenses for soliciting contributions through a trade association’s own website and e-mail is not an in-kind contribution because an internet communication is not a “public communication” if it “is not placed for a fee on another person’s website,” and therefore does not meet the content prong test of coordinated communications. The Commission also found U.B.A.’s plan is not “electioneering communications” which are limited to broadcast, cable, or satellite communications

Other questions related to the U.B.A. request were also addressed in the opinion.

Only lobbyists in Alaska who are constituents in a state candidate’s newly certified district may donate to a candidate’s campaign, an Advisory Opinion from the Alaska Public Offices Commission has declared.

Because a lobbyist residing in a candidate’s district may contribute to a candidate, Representative Bob Lynn requested an opinion regarding whether a lobbyist in his current district could donate to his campaign when he or she may not be a constituent in his proposed new voting district.

Advisory Opinion 11-14-CD concludes candidates “will only be able to accept donations from lobbyists residing in the new district.”

Presently, only candidates for the proposed new districts, and not the current districts, are being certified by the Division of Elections. In its analysis, the Advisory Opinion also articulates, “Whether or not a lobbyist resides in the candidate’s district is determined on the day the contribution is accepted.”