A bill concerning campaign communication disclosures has been vetoed by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal. Citing to potential vagueness associated with the bill’s provisions and First Amendment concerns, Deal vetoed Senate Bill 163.

The General Assembly will now have to muster the support to override the veto if the measure is to become law.

Senate Bill 163 would require a clear statement on all campaign communications concerning the source of payment financing the item or items used in the communication, as well as requiring specific disclosures depending on the person or persons financing the communication.

The 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision of the District Court which upheld a new Minnesota law that revealed political donations from several corporations. The law was enacted in May of 2010 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United freed businesses to spend corporate money on elections, overturning restrictions on corporate political spending in about half the states, including Minnesota. Minnesota lawmakers responded by enacting disclosure requirements to publicize corporate campaign spending.

In affirming the decision, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with claims that Minnesota’s disclosure requirements effectively prohibit corporate independent expenditures and impose burdensome regulations that inhibit free speech.  The Court continued that Minnesota’s regulations are similar to laws upheld by the Supreme Court and the regulations on corporate independent expenditures are less burdensome than federal regulations on PACs.

Q: I am a registered lobbyist.  Can a company executive and/or expert accompany me to meetings with public officials without needing to register?

A:  In most instances, individuals are not “insulated” from registration by engaging in lobbying activities in the presence of a registered lobbyist.  California is an example of an exception to this rule.  In California, an individual does not engage in direct communication when he meets or speaks with a qualifying official in the company of a registered lobbyist retained by the individual’s employer, or by a bona fide trade association or membership organization of which the individual’s employer is a member.

The answer will to depend on the jurisdiction’s registration thresholds. Often times, executives and experts will not have to register because their involvement will not meet the compensation, time, or expenditure threshold in the given jurisdiction.  For example, in Connecticut, the expert would have to receive $2,000 in compensation in a calendar year before having to register.  A one-time meeting with public officials would probably not exceed this threshold.  Likewise, in Massachusetts, there is a statutory presumption that an individual is not a lobbyist if he spends 25 hours or less and receives less than $2,500 for lobbying efforts during any semi-annual reporting period.

The context and content of the conversation are also important in determining whether registration is required.  If the executive and/or expert are merely providing testimony at a public hearing, most often this will not be considered lobbying and he will not be required to register.  In some cases, as in Arizona, there are exceptions for individuals providing technical information to public officials.

It is always important to remember the “title” of the person is not relevant in determining whether he or she needs to register as a lobbyist in any given jurisdiction.

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.

Q. If I receive an invoice from my contract lobbyist for services rendered during one reporting period, but I do not make payment on the invoice until the next reporting period, how do I know when to accurately report the payment?

A. You need to determine whether your particular state uses the cash or accrual method of disclosure.

The cash method is based on when money is actually transacted; in other words, when funds in point of fact change hands from client to contract lobbyist.  In direct contrast to the cash method, the accrual method focuses on the obligation to pay as opposed to when funds actually change hands. Essentially, when you receive the invoice from your contract lobbyist, you are obligated to pay.

So which date do you use for reporting purposes?  Is it the date you actually mail the check to the contract lobbyist, or the date you receive the invoice?  These rarely, if ever, occur on the same date and therein lies the issue:  what happens when these dates fall in different reporting periods?

Some states, such as Tennessee and Texas, specifically provide by statute or rule the method of disclosure that should be followed.  When the law is silent, the most prudent thing to do is call the disclosure office for that particular jurisdiction and get an answer.  Be sure to take the name and title of the person you spoke with and keep it in your records.  You may often hear, “It doesn’t matter; report the expense however you choose.”  This sounds great, but in reality is very frustrating. Whichever method you choose, be consistent. If you decide upon the cash method, document that and use it for all future reports.

When it comes to your contract lobbyists, be sure they are using the disclosure method required by law. This can be important in an audit when the state looks to see if your report aligns with the contract lobbyist’s report.  If the method is optional, discuss with your contract lobbyist which method they intend to use and be consistent.

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.

Effective March 17, 2011, the amount triggering detailed reporting for food, beverages, transportation, lodging, and entertainment will drop to $90.

The trigger is set by statute at 60% of the amount of the legislative per diem.

Due to the legislative per diem decreasing from $168 for the 2009 session to $150 for the 2011 session, the trigger has decreased from $100.80 to $90.

Q: Now that Illinois has semi-monthly reporting, are there any changes to the contents of the report?

A: As of January 1, 2011, Illinois requires disclosure reports to be submitted on the fifth and 20th of each month.  This new schedule began on January 20, 2011.  The Secretary of State’s Office issued a 2011 Expenditure Report Filing Guide concerning how to disclose reportable activity on the Activity Detail Report.  This guide contains some changes for client or lobbying entity reporting.

Individual expenditures made on behalf of covered officials must be itemized with expanded information.  Lobbying entity reports must itemize for each individual expenditure or transaction:

• The name of the official for whose benefit each expenditure was made;
• The name of the client on whose behalf the expenditure was made;
• Whether the expenditure was made on behalf of a client;
• The total amount of the expenditure;
• A description of the expenditure;
• The vendor or purveyor to whom the expenditure was made;
• The address and location of the expenditure if the expenditure was for an intangible item such as lodging;
• The date on which the expenditure occurred; and
• The subject matter of the lobbying activity, if any.

As in previous years, the expenditure reports must also include reporting of lobbying activity that is unrelated to an itemized expenditure.  This requirement is satisfied by identifying:

(more…)

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Human Life of Washington challenging Washington’s campaign finance disclosure law.  The Supreme Court let stand without comment a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the state’s disclosure requirements for political committees, independent expenditures and political advertising.

Human Life of Washington challenged the requirements as a violation of its free-speech rights, as it sought to keep donors in a 2008 campaign opposing an assisted-suicide ballot measure confidential.   The group argued that it was not required to register as a political-action committee and disclose donors because its advertisements did not specifically reference the ballot measure.

Photo of the U.S. Supreme Court by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

Q. As a registered lobbyist, am I allowed to make a personal political contribution to a general assembly member whom I might eventually lobby? Does it make a difference whether I am a constituent of the general assembly member? Is such a contribution reportable?

A. As is customary in the nature of government affairs work, the answer depends upon the state in which you are making the contribution. That means you need to check the rules and regulations on political contributions for each state before you make the contribution. Also, whether such contributions are permitted or reported depends upon the amount of the contribution.

Here are some relevant examples:

• Personal political contributions by a lobbyist are reportable in Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. In some instances, the reporting requirement extends to a member of the lobbyist’s immediate family also making a contribution.
• In Pennsylvania, a registered lobbyist making a personal political contribution must register and report in the same manner required of PACs.
• There is an absolute prohibition on personal political contributions by registered lobbyists in Connecticut and North Carolina.
• In South Carolina, lobbyists are prohibited from making contributions to a candidate or anyone acting on behalf of a candidate if the lobbyist engages in lobbying the public office or public body for which the candidate is seeking election.
• In California, lobbyists may not contribute to state candidates or officeholders, or their controlled committees, if registered to lobby the candidate or officeholder’s agency.
• In Alaska, a lobbyist may not make a contribution to a candidate for office in a district outside the lobbyist’s own voting district. This prohibition continues for one year after a lobbyist’s registration or renewed registration date. A lobbyist who contributes to a legislative candidate must file a report within 30 days after making the contribution.

Political contributions not otherwise prohibited by a registered lobbyist could nonetheless be prohibited based on the particular state’s pay-to-play laws. Also, always make sure there are no restrictions on making the contribution during the legislative session.

Finally, it bears repeating to check the laws in the particular state before you make the contribution.

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 state Ethics Commission has released its final promulgated amendments to the state’s ethics rules for 2011.

These amendments, available on the commission’s website, become law on July 1 if no action is taken by the state legislature.

One of the rules set forth this year will allow corporations to make independent expenditures and another will allow PACs to contribute to ballot measure committees.

Image of the Oklahoma flag by Denelson83 on Wikipedia.

SB1037 would prohibit certain officials from working for a company receiving certain state contracts or grants for one year if the former official was involved in the award process.

SB1038, a “revolving door” law, would prohibit state officials or legislators from working as a lobbyist for one year after leaving office.

Q.  If my employer hosts a function to which all members of the state legislature are invited, must I disclose the name of each individual legislator attending, or can I merely reference the fact that all members were invited?

A. This is a very common occurrence for most lobbyists: to pay for events where all members of the legislature, or some other identifiable group, are invited. The reporting implications for such events range from simple aggregate disclosure to detailed reporting where the name of every legislator attending must be listed. The key to accurate reporting is to know how the state defines “all invited” and whether it takes into consideration any type of “sub-group.”

Here is a representative summary of the varied reporting requirements you might encounter with this type of event:

Arizona – All expenditures incurred by a principal or lobbyist for a special event for legislators – including parties, dinners, athletic events, entertainment, and other functions – to which all members of the legislature, either house of the legislature, or any committee of the legislature are invited must be reported. These expenditures do not have to be reported based on the cost per legislator. However, a description of the event, date and location of the event, number of persons invited, and total expenditures must be reported.

Arkansas – A “special event” is a planned activity to which a specific governmental body or identifiable group of public servants is invited. One of the unique aspects of Arkansas disclosure in this situation is that if the event has multiple co-hosts, the names of all other lobbyists sharing in the cost of the event must be reported.

Also in Arkansas, hospitality rooms may be reported as a “special event” provided the lobbyist invites specific governmental bodies or identifiable groups of public servants. When reporting hospitality room expenses, the lobbyist must itemize the date the hospitality room was open; the name of the event hosted; the exact amount paid by the lobbyist towards the total expenditure for the hospitality room; and the names of all other lobbyists sharing in the cost of the room.

Georgia – Aggregate expenditures on food, beverages, and registration at group events to which all members of an agency, including the legislature and its committees and subcommittees, are invited must be disclosed. Also, if an expenditure is made on behalf of a public official and is simultaneously incurred for an identifiable group of public officials, the individual identification of whom would be impractical, the name of the individual official need not be disclosed. A general description of the identifiable group will suffice.

Louisiana – For legislative lobbying, the following must be invited before invoking group disclosure: the entire legislature; either house; any standing committee; select committee; statutory committee; committee created by resolution of either house; subcommittee of any committee; recognized caucus; or any delegation thereof. Disclosure includes the name of the group invited; the amount, date, and location of the event.

For executive branch lobbying, group disclosure is when more than 25 executive branch officials are invited to a reception, social gathering, or other function. The name of the event, amount, date, and location must be reported.

Utah – In Utah, food or beverage expenditures must be reported if the aggregate daily expenditures benefitting the public official are greater than $25, unless the food or beverage is provided in connection with an event to which all of the members of the legislature, a standing committee, interim committee, legislative task force, or a party caucus are invited.

Washington – Washington does not provide for group reporting. Even if all members of the legislature, or all members of any sub-group within the legislature, are invited, every individual person must be listed by name if the expenditure exceeds $25 per occasion (which it usually does when group events are involved).

If two or more lobbyist employers share the expenses of a reception or other entertainment event, the lobbyist primarily responsible for organizing the event must disclose on his or her monthly L-2 report the names of the legislators (and members of their immediate families) attending the group event. Rather than duplicating this list of attendees, the L-2 reports filed by the lobbyists of the other employers sponsoring the event may make reference to the lobbyist’s report that contains these details.

We have not listed rules for all the states, only examples of some states. If you have a question on a state not listed here, please contact us directly at 330-761-9960.

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.

Q. Once I complete my lobbyist registration, what other obligations do I have in my state?

A. Filing lobbyist and/or principal disclosure reports is the bare minimum requirement in many states.  In addition, you may be required to obtain an ID badge.  Some states require mandatory lobbyist training on a regular basis.  Most often, this can be done online.  To date, the states requiring this are: Alaska, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

Many states have different gift law limitations for lobbyists.  For example, in Texas lobbyists are permitted to give gifts of $500 or less, while public servants may accept non-cash item of less than $50 from non-lobbyists.

In addition to reporting requirements, states may require pre- or post-notification to officials when an expenditure has been made on his/her behalf which is disclosed on a lobbying report.  In Illinois, a lobbyist who makes an expenditure on behalf of an official must inform him/her, in writing, at the time the expenditure.

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.

Amber Fish Linke is the Compliance Manager for State and Federal Communications, Inc.

Q. If I provide a gift to a covered official exceeding the gift limit in that jurisdiction, can the covered official reimburse my employer for the difference?

A. This is a situation you never, ever want to be in, but sometimes it happens. Fortunately, most of the states allow for the covered official to reimburse the donor in order to rectify the situation.

One of the circumstances precluding reimbursement is when too much time has elapsed between providing the excessive gift and reimbursement by the official. If too much time has passed, the state considers the gift to have been “accepted” by the official, and reimbursement is not an option.

Also, even if the official reimburses the overage, sometimes the lobbyist, the official, or both must nonetheless report the total value of the gift. From a disclosure standpoint, this makes a precarious situation even more suspect.

Some examples of these rules include the following:

• In Connecticut, the gift limit is $10. The official may not partially reimburse a more expensive gift to bring the final cost to the lobbyist below $10, because the overall value of the item is still over $10 [Advisory Opinion 1997-15].

• In the state of Washington, an official’s name cannot be removed from a filed lobbying report, regardless of whether the official has fully reimbursed the lobbyist for the reported expenditure. In addition, an official cannot partially reimburse a lobbyist for an expense to bring the total cost below the $50 reporting threshold. Even if a partial reimbursement occurs, both the lobbyist and the official must report the full amount. The only way an expenditure exceeding the threshold does not have to be reported is if the official fully reimburses the lobbyist prior to the lobbyist filing the lobbying report disclosing the expenditure.

• In New York, public officials and employees may completely reimburse the donor of a gift if the reimbursement is not removed or remote in time in order to comply with the gift ban [Advisory Opinion No. 97-03]. If an item, entertainment, or other benefit is received and payment of its market value is made prior to or simultaneously with receipt, there is no gift [Advisory Opinion No. 97-03].

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.

Q. Can I hire a federal, state, or local official who just left office to represent our interests before his or her former colleagues?

A. While the answer depends on the jurisdiction, the trend is definitely to increase the restrictions on the ability of former elected officials and government employees to seek employment as lobbyists after leaving their government positions.

Most commonly, these restrictions take the form of a waiting period during which the former official is not permitted to influence actions over which he or she exerted some power or influence.  Ostensibly, the waiting period allows this power or influence to dissipate.  It also allows time for the specific issues the former official influenced to move through the system, under the theory that the former official’s influence will be lessened on issues he or she did not directly handle.

The revolving door restrictions placed upon officials in New Jersey are fairly typical.  In that state, former members of the legislature, the governor, and heads of principal departments of the executive branch are prohibited from registering as lobbyists for one year after leaving office.  Anyone knowingly or willfully violating the revolving door restrictions is subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 and can be barred from engaging in lobbying in the state for up to an additional five years.  The law assigns the Election Law Enforcement Commission the power to hold hearings regarding possible violations and assess the enumerated penalties if the violations are found to have occurred.

Most jurisdictions that have introduced ethics legislation in recent years have included revolving door provisions, as the Indiana General Assembly did this year with the passage of House Bill 1001.  Because of the increasing prevalence and importance of these laws, State and Federal Communications will be focusing on this issue and addressing it in our Executive Source on Lobbying Laws.

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.