House Bill 139, a bill aimed at limiting pay-to-play activities in the state, began moving through committees last week.

The bill seeks to limit vendors who have a state contract of greater than $25,000 from contributing in excess of $500 per election to a candidate or candidate committee for a public servant if the public servant would have authority over the contract with the vendor.

House Bill 139 is similar to a bill introduced during the prior legislative session; however, that bill was left out of a series of ethics reforms eventually approved by the legislature.

Photo of the North Carolina State Legislative Building by Jayron32 on Wikipedia.

House Bill 3653, a bill concerning lobbyist registration fees, was brought before the House Appropriations Committee on Monday, April 18, 2011, as the bill moves closer to a vote before the full House.

The bill would provide for lobbyist registration fees of up to $1,000; however, lobbyist registration fees of up to $200 would be assessed if the lobbyist is employed by a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organization.

If passed, the bill provides for an effective date of September 1, 2011.

Photo of the Texas State Capitol by LoneStarMike on Wikipedia.

The Georgia General Assembly adjourned late Thursday, April 14, 2011. Among the measures passed on the final legislative day was Senate Bill 160, requiring lobbyist reporting of expenditures made on behalf or for the benefit of a public employee for the purpose of influencing a public officer. The measure will now be sent to the desk of Governor Nathan Deal for his signature.

Senate Bill 160 was amended earlier in the week to close a loophole in state ethics law made public after Advisory Opinion 2011-03, released by the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, concluded state law did not require the reporting of such expenditures.

The final semi-monthly disclosure report for state level lobbyists will be due May 1, 2011. Further, the first monthly disclosure report for state level lobbyists will be due June 5, 2011.

Photo of the Georgia State Capitol dome by Connor.carey on Wikipedia.

The Georgia House of Representatives voted Tuesday to close a loophole in the state ethics law concerning expenditures made on behalf or for the benefit of public employees.

The House voted to amend Senate Bill 160 to add provisions requiring lobbyist reporting of expenditures made on behalf or for the benefit of a public employee for the purpose of influencing a public officer after Advisory Opinion 2011-03, released by the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, concluded state law did not require the reporting of such expenditures.

The bill must now return to the Senate for a vote on the House amendment.

Photo of the Georgia State Capitol dome by Connor.carey on Wikipedia.

The Independent Ethics Commission released Position Statement 11-01 on Friday, April 8, 2011. In this statement, the Commission adjusted the limit on gifts to public officials and employees in the state of Colorado to $53 per calendar year, up from $50.

Pursuant to Article XXIX section 3(6), which was part of the 2006 voter-approved Amendment 41, the limit is to be adjusted based upon inflation every four years. This is the first such adjustment required.

Photo of downtown Denver by 33mhz on Wikipedia.

The rule prohibits investment advisers from providing investment advisory services for compensation to a government entity within two years after a contribution to an official of that government entity is made, either by the investment adviser or by any covered associate of the investment adviser.  This prohibition does not apply to contributions made by a covered associate to officials for whom the covered associate was entitled to vote at the time of the contributions if the contributions did not exceed $350 in the aggregate to any one official, per election.  The prohibitions also do not apply to contributions made by a covered associate to officials for whom the covered associate was not entitled to vote at the time of the contributions if the contributions did not exceed $150 in the aggregate to any one official, per election.

An additional prohibition prevents an investment adviser from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any person to solicit a government entity for investment advisory services unless that person is a regulated person or is an executive officer, general partner, managing member, or employee of the investment adviser.  Nor may such advisers coordinate or solicit any person or political action committee to make a contribution to an official of a government entity to which the adviser is providing or seeking to provide investment advisory services or payment to a political party of a state or locality where the investment adviser is providing or seeking to provide investment advisory services to a government entity.

The rule has two important compliance dates.  The March 14, 2011 date applied to investment advisers subject to the rule.  The other compliance date, September 13, 2011, is when investment advisers will no longer be able to use third parties to solicit government business except in compliance with this rule.  Additionally, advisers to registered investment pools have until the September 13 date to comply with this rule.

LB 606 would require any person who makes an electioneering communication in the amount of more than $250 to file a report of the electioneering communication with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission, similar to the requirements for those making independent expenditures.

Further, the measure would require a corporation, labor organization, or business association making an electioneering communication with a value of more than $250 to file a report with the Commission including the nature, date, and value of the electioneering communication, as well as the name of the candidate identified in the electioneering communication.

Finally, the term ‘electioneering communication’ would be defined to mean any communication referring to a clearly identified candidate, is publicly distributed in the 30 days before an election, and is directed to the electorate of the office sought by the clearly identified candidate, while also noting ‘electioneering communication’ would not include a contribution or expenditure, a communication by media, a candidate debate, or a communication by a membership organization to the organization’s members.

Photo of the Nebraska State Capitol by Decumanus on Wikipedia.

Commissioners in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina have agreed to a change in the county’s ethics code preventing themselves and other county employees from soliciting or receiving tickets to cultural or sporting events supported by the county.

If the county has included money, either directly or indirectly, or if an employee knows or has reason to know county money may be requested for an event, employees will no longer be able to receive complimentary tickets. County employees are still free to purchase their own tickets to sporting and cultural events without violating the new policy.

Photo of the Charlotte, North Carolina skyline by Riction on Wikipedia.

Governor Deal signed House Bill 232 on Tuesday, March 15, 2011. The law, which is effective retroactively to January 10, 2011, redefines the term “lobbyist” to require a person to be compensated specifically for lobbying activities before being required to register and report as a lobbyist. Also, a person is now only deemed a “lobbyist” if more than 10 percent of his or her working hours are spent engaged in lobbying activities.

A “lookback” period is included for each calendar month, requiring lobbyist registration and an initial disclosure report within five days if at the end of any month a person has met the 10 percent test. Further, the expenditure triggers for lobbyist registration have been increased from $250 to $1,000.

Additionally, lobbyists are granted a grace period of three business days in filing all disclosure reports. Finally, persons who are employed as bona fide salespersons are exempt from regulation as vendor lobbyists.

Photo of the dome of the Georgia State Capitol by Connor.carey on Wikipedia.

The Hartford city council is debating a proposal to ban campaign contributions from contractors who have business deals with the city. Proposed more than two years ago, the measure is now moving forward after receiving word from the city’s corporation counsel assuring the legality of such a measure.

There are still details to be determined concerning the measure, including who will be expected to enforce the measure. A vote is expected by the end of March.

Aerial photo of downtown Hartford by Sage Ross on Wikipedia.

The Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission has released Advisory Opinion No. 2011-1, providing for an interpretation of the lobbyist registration statute in regards to individuals who are officers or employees of a business entity. The Commission has determined these individuals must register as lobbyists if they meet with public officials and express opinions on potential or actual legislation that may impact the business entity.

Stacey Kalberman, Executive Secretary of the Commission, prepared the opinion, noting “the General Assembly drafted a broad provision which can only be interpreted to mean that any individual compensated by another, whether as a consultant or an employee, is acting as a lobbyist if such person attempts to influence legislation by the General Assembly.”

This opinion does not affect employees who may be conducting lobbying activities as an uncompensated volunteer, so long as they do not exceed $250 in expenditures.

Effective April 1, 2011, lobbyists will be required to register with the city treasurer-clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying. Lobbyists will be required to pay a fee of $25 for each principal represented. Additionally, each lobbying firm may register in the name of the firm, corporation, or legal entity, provided the registration lists the names of all persons who engage in lobbying for the firm.

Further, each lobbying firm will be required to file a quarterly compensation report during each calendar quarter during any portion of which the lobbyist or lobbying firm was registered to represent a principal. A provision was also included in the ordinance stating the annual period of registration will be the calendar year, ending December 31, and noted the first period of registration will begin on the ordinance’s effective date of April 1, 2011, and all registrations during the 2011 year after such time will end on December 31, 2011.

The Virginia General Assembly adjourned sine die on Sunday, February 27, 2011, one day after the originally scheduled sine die adjournment date. The Legislature voted to extend the session in order to finish work on the state budget. This is the sixth time in the last twelve years the Legislature has needed to extend the adjournment date, which includes having adjourned one day later than scheduled in 2010 as well.

Following adjournment, the General Assembly entered into a special session in order to consider drawing new legislative maps in response to the release of the 2010 Census numbers. The special session was immediately recessed until April 4, 2011.

Photo of the Virginia Capitol by Amadeust on Wikipedia.

Governor Dannel P. Malloy has proposed reducing the number of budgeted state agencies from 87 to 57 in a move intended to increase efficiency and save the state money. Included in the reduction plan is a proposal to combine the Office of State Ethics, Elections Enforcement Commission, Contracting Standards Board, Freedom of Information Commission, and Judicial Review Council into a new agency to be named the Office of Governmental Accountability.

While not detailing how these agencies would be capable of functioning as one, or where any cost savings would be seen, Malloy did question in a press release why all these agencies are presently separate, stating “…why are all of the government accountability functions…separate entities when so many of their issue areas and jurisdiction overlap? It just didn’t make sense.”

Quickly voicing their concern against this proposal was the non-profit group Common Cause, noting how each of these “watchdog” agencies presently must keep watch over the other. A statement released by Common Cause noted “If a citizen files a complaint that the Elections Enforcement Commission or the Office of State Ethics has violated the FOI Act, the watchdog agency would be both the respondent and judge. It is unlikely that the new commission would bring ethics charges against itself, and this watchdog agency would undermine the public’s confidence and become a national joke.”

Photo of the state capitol by Ragesoss on Wikipedia.