Q:  Can I change the method by which I am calculating my lobbying expenditures for purposes of filing my Federal  LD-2 reports?

A:  Yes, at the appropriate time.  Under the LDA, registrants have the option of electing the compilation method for quarterly expenditures – that is, whether they use the LDA definitions or the IRC definitions for lobbying.  A change in that method election can only take place, however, in the first quarter of each new year.  Once a report has been filed using one method then all subsequent reports for that reporting year must employ the same method.  That being the case, this is a very good time to consider whether it makes sense to change.  There are advantages and disadvantages to each method and the decision to change your method should be made after careful consideration.  Here are just a few important differences to keep in mind when considering a new method election for 2012:

• The IRC method allows an organization to employ only one tracking system for both tax and LDA purposes;
• The IRC method provides a greatly narrowed definition of communications with executive branch officials;
• Under the LDA method, neither grassroots nor state and local lobbying expenditures are included.

If you think it may make sense to consider a change in your calculating method, please let us know and we’d be happy to assist in a more thorough analysis.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: marketing@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.

The practical result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s January 21, 2010, Citizens United decision allows corporations, labor unions, and others to make independent expenditures and electioneering communications regarding candidates without restrictions.

We are approaching the second anniversary of Citizens United. We said at the time of the decision the biggest impact would come when states chose to react – or not react – to the decision. We have tracked what the states are doing – whether the state has passed new laws, clarified existing laws, or has bills pending.

Be sure to take a look at the essential and up-to-date report we have made available on our website regarding how the states are reacting to Citizens United.

January 8-13, 2012   Public Affairs Council Institute, Laguna, Calif.

January 19, 2012        NCSL Executive Committee Meeting, Kaiwah Island, South Carolina

January 30 – February 2, 2012      National Grassroots Conference, Miami, Florida

February 25 – February 27, 2012 NGA Winter Meeting, Washington, D.C.

February 27 – March 1, 2012        National PAC Conference, Orlando, Florida

It is a time when the average citizen taking action and working to get their voice is heard is becoming increasingly common, and more and more tools are being created that help organize and mobilize such actions.

This week’s Highlighted Site Of The Week is Change.org, a site launched in 2007 which offers an effective way that people can engage in social issues. Anyone with a cause can log in, create and sign petitions, mobilize support, and cause change.

The site’s founder, Ben Rattray, says that Change.org aims to

Transform social activism by serving as the central platform that connects likeminded people, whatever their interests, and enables them to exchange information, share ideas, and collectively act to address the issues they care about.

Once someone creates a petition for their cause, Change.org may connect these advocates with nonprofits that work towards a similar goal, and in doing that they are making a dialogue possible between the two groups, mobilizing communities in a way what was not before possible.

Change.org has already contributed to many victories such as Bank of America dropping their debit card fee, JCPenny compensating families of Bangladash worker’s who were killed in the 2011 fire, and countless other victories for a variety of different causes.

Lately it seems like causes born from a grassroots movement are achieving success every day, and Change.org has made this easier to achieve.

Have a great weekend and a Happy New Year!

• The rise of the digital age has transformed the meaning of open government – Open Government: A New Window on the World
• As demands for transparency and amount of data grow for government agencies, budgets shrink – What’s in Store for Government IT in 2012?
• How much is a Twitter follower worth? Man sued for $340,000 for company’s 17,000 Twitter followers – Lawsuit May Determine Who Owns a Twitter Account

Many people enjoy killing time by getting on YouTube and watching the latest viral videos for a quick laugh. Andrew Kaczynski, on the other hand, enjoys digging into C-SPAN’s online archives and posting his favorite videos onto his YouTube channel, AKaczynski1, many of them which are embarrassing and problematic for current Republican presidential hopefuls, such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

This week’s Highlighted Site Of The Week features the YouTube channel of Andrew Kaczynski. This 22 year-old college student has made recent headlines by posting videos he discovered like this video of a lecure Mitt Romney gave about John Kerry and the art of flip-flopping that could easily be used to describe himself today.

As the Republican presidential hopefuls campaign to become their party’s presidential candidate, a forgotten video can create an embarrassing and difficult obstacle to overcome.

Andrew Kaczynski currently has 141 videos posted on his channel. That is a lot of forgotten footage that would likely never have been noticed if not for his unique hobby. While Kaczynski describes himself as a moderate Republican, he admits he is more concerned with scoring page views than gaining political points for his party of choice. This provides more enjoyment for the rest of us!

This article provides more information about Kaczynski.

Happy Holiday!

Photo of Newt Gingrich by Gage Skidmore on Wikipedia.

Photo of Mitt Romney by c.berlet/publiceye.org on Wikipedia.

“In the latest act of online political sabotage, individuals who type newtgingrich.com into their browsers will be directed to one of a number of sites that are embarrassing to Republican primary candidate Newt Gingrich” – Newt Gingrich Attacked By Digital Vandals

“The White House is taking its fight over payroll tax to Twitter with a campaign using the hashtag #40dollars that asks what you can buy with that amount” – White House Uses #40dollars Twitter Campaign to Influence Payroll Tax Debate

“Using cloud technology for elections reporting and results can also save governments money” – Elections Results Websites Heading to Cloud

“The federal government is on pace to close at least 1,200 of its 3,100 data centers by the end of 2015” – Federal CIO: 1,200 Data Centers to Close by 2015

“Proceedings in the Iowa House will be streamed live over the Internet when lawmakers begin the legislative session next month” – Iowa House Action Will be Streamed on Internet

Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and President Obama are especially successful at utilizing Facebook – Campaigns Capitalize on Facebook

Enjoy!

Q:  I’m a registered lobbyist in many different states.   I’ve noticed some states have badge requirements.  Am I really required to wear a badge? 

A:  The 2012 registration season is upon us.  As legislative sessions commence in various states, it is important to take stock of your various lobbyist registration requirements.   As you probably know, it is important to timely file your registration renewal.  However, there are other auxiliary requirements you must mind before you step onto capital grounds, such as your jurisdiction’s training and badge requirements.

The short answer to your question is a resounding yes—in some jurisdictions, wearing your badge is required to engage in lobbying activity.  In some states, you are unable to complete your registration, or file lobbyist disclosure reports unless you pick up your name badge.   Some states may require a personal visit to have your picture taken.  For example, in Georgia, upon initial registration, you must visit the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission to have your photo taken for your badge.  For quick reference, here is a list of states where badges and/or name tags are required:

• Connecticut
• Georgia
• Kansas
• Maine
• Missouri
• North Dakota
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• Nevada
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Dakota
• Wyoming

However, in some jurisdictions, although wearing a badge is encouraged, it is not absolutely required.  These states include Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: marketing@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.

For those of you who may have missed some of today’s relevant social media articles, here are a few for you to check out!

President Barack Obama, who has been characterized as anti-business by his political opponents, has received more in campaign contributions from business executives this year than any Republican presidential candidate. Obama Backers Make President Top Fundraiser From Business.

The Facebook political team commend Newt Gingrich for using WayIn, a polling application, as well as providing a tab that enables potential volunteers to find campaign-related events. Gingrich Savvy On Facebook, Says Company’s Political Team.

The pros and cons of apps vs. mobile-enabled websites are discussed. It’s apps vs. mobile-enabled websites in GSA smackdown

Enjoy!

Q:  I want to make political contributions to a candidate for state assembly.  The limits are per election.  How do I make certain the contribution is attributed to the correct election [primary or general]?  Does it matter when I give the contribution in relation to the election?

A:  In this situation it is important to have a “meeting of the minds” between the contributor and the candidate.  The contributor’s intent should be made clear by either indicating the name of the election on the memo line of the check [e.g., 2012 Primary Election], or including a cover letter with the check, or both.  The cover letter can contain language specifically earmarking the contribution for the intended election.  Using these precautions should prevent the candidate from allocating the contribution to an election different from the one intended by the contributor, thereby resulting in a violation of the per election contribution limits.   It is not unusual for a candidate to file his pre- or post- election reports disclosing aggregate contributions from a donor in violation of the per election limit.  The candidate allocated two or more checks to one election, but the contributor intended one check for the primary and one for the general.

Furthermore, a contributor must be aware of the timing of the contribution.  For instance, in New Jersey, you only have 17 days after an election to make a contribution for that particular election; otherwise the contribution is automatically applied toward the next election, regardless of the contributor’s intent.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: marketing@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.

A three judge panel of the 4^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to uphold North Carolina’s ban on registered lobbyists making campaign contributions to candidates for the Legislature and the Council of State.

A lobbyist with the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the ban on contributions, saying it violated her right to freedom of speech and association.

The appeals court upheld a district court ruling by stating the ban was a “valid exercise of North Carolina’s legislative prerogative” to address potential corruption and the appearance of corruption.

November 9, 2011 WASRG Summit, Washington, D.C.

November 16, 2011 American League of Lobbyists Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

November 19-22, 2011 SGAC Foundation Leaders’ Policy Conference, Miami, Florida

November 29-December 2, 2011 NCSL 2011 Fall Forum, Tampa, Florida

December 4-7, 2011 Council on Governmental Ethics Laws, Nashville, Tennessee

Q: I am a registered lobbyist who would like to host a state legislator at a college football game.  Are there specific restrictions to this type of gift?

A: The most common gift restrictions are those relating to food and beverage.  Providing tickets or admission to a football game is a different type of gift, referred to as entertainment or hospitality.

Some jurisdictions do not restrict providing entertainment at all.  Pennsylvania does not restrict a lobbyist providing hospitality to an official.  However, Pennsylvania does require the lobbyist’s principal to report the gift of hospitality, even itemizing it if the aggregate of all gifts to the official is more than $650 in a calendar year.

Other jurisdictions allow a lobbyist to provide entertainment up to a certain amount.  In Texas, a lobbyist may provide expenditures for entertainment of $500 or less in a calendar year.  Ohio permits a lesser amount.  Lobbyists may provide Ohio officials gifts worth an aggregate annual value of $75 or less.  Like Pennsylvania, both Texas and Ohio require the gift to be reported.

Louisiana specifically prohibits providing tickets to sporting events except for a very narrow exception.  Other jurisdictions do not specifically mention entertainment or hospitality, but generally restrict these gifts to officials.  Though a big football state, Wisconsin generally prohibits all gifts to officials.

The question reinforces the idea that a lobbyist must understand all of a jurisdiction’s gift restrictions, not just those that pertain to food and beverage.  When considering any dollar value limitation on entertainment or hospitality, be sure to consider the proper method to value the gift in that jurisdiction.  For example, the cost of a football ticket for ethics purposes could be its face value or its fair market value.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: marketing@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.

The New Mexico Republican Party, represented by attorney James Bopp, Jr., has filed a lawsuit challenging New Mexico’s campaign finance law. The suit asks the federal district court in Albuquerque to declare unconstitutional part of a state law which sets a contribution limit of $5,000 to or by political parties. The law was passed in 2009, but did not become effective until after the 2010 election.

The lawsuit also contends that federal election law precludes New Mexico from restricting how much money a national political party can give to a state party organization for election work, such as registering voters and encouraging voter turnout.