The Vermont state’s Elections Division increased contribution limits.

Under the revised limits, contributions of up to $1,120 per election cycle may be made to state representative candidates, and contributions of up to $1,680 per election cycle may be made to state senate candidates.

Individuals and PACs may contribute up to $4,480 to statewide candidates and PACs per election cycle.

The adjusted limits represent a 6.4% increase for the entire 2024 election cycle.

The contribution limit for candidates and political committees in North Carolina has increased as mandated by state law.

The previous limit was capped at $5,600.

The new limit is now $6,400 and took effect on January 1 of the new year.

Campaign contribution limits have increased in the province of Ontario, Canada for 2023.

In a calendar year, a person individually may contribute $3,350 to each party, to each constituency association and nominations contestants of a party, and to each leadership contestant of a party.

Additionally, in a campaign period, a person may contribute $3,350 to each candidate of a party, and to each independent non-party candidate.

The total contribution made with respect to a single fundraising event by a contributor may not exceed $3,350 multiplied by the indexation factor.

The previous contribution limits from 2022 were $3,350.

Campaign contribution limits increased in British Columbia for 2023 to $1,401.40 for contributions to registered political parties, including their candidates, nomination contestants and registered constituency associations.

Additionally, individuals can also contribute up to $1,401.40 to independent candidates and leadership contestants, if a leadership contest is called in 2023. The previous limits from 2022 were $1,309.09.

Also increased to $400 is the limit of a fee paid to attend a leadership convention or other convention of a political party without counting toward the $1,401.40 contribution limit.

These contribution amounts are adjusted at the start of each calendar year.

“Going forward,” the Federal Election Commission (FEC) will require disclosure requirements for contributions received from limited liability companies (LLCs) be applied to independent expenditure-only political committees (i.e., Super PACs) in the same manner in which they are applied to all other political committees.

On April 15, four of the six commissioners issued a “Statement of Reasons” for their conclusion of a closeout of a complaint. In the statement, which refers to Matters Under Review (MUR) 7454, Chairman Allen Dickerson, Vice Chair Steven T. Walther, Commissioner Shana M. Broussard, and Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub assert, “contributions from LLCs to committees must be attributed pursuant to Commission regulations, and those regulations apply to all committees, including [Super PACs]. The Commission will apply that understanding going forward, and may seek civil penalties in appropriate future cases.”

In MUR 7454, the Super PAC in question had not obtained the required attribution information for two contributions made by LLCs. The Super PAC attributed the contributions only to the LLCs. Regulations require committees to report certain attribution information for contributions from LLCs.

An LLC that has a single natural-person member and is not taxed as a corporation must be attributed only to the natural person member, and not the LLC. A contribution by an LLC that is disregarded for tax purposes and does not have a single natural-person member is treated as a partnership contribution; and, a partnership contribution must be attributed to both the partnership and each partner, either in proportion to his or her share of the partnership profits or by agreement among the partners.

In prior cases premised on similar facts, the FEC could not agree whether, following the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org v. FEC court decisions, LLC reporting rules and conduit contribution rules applied to contributions made to the newly formed Super PACs authorized by those judicial rulings. The commissioners determined that “with the passage of time, [Super PACs] have become a regular part of the campaign finance landscape, and…there is no longer a lack of clarity concerning the application of LLC reporting rules and conduit contribution rules in these circumstances.”

Because the FEC has not previously made this conclusion under similar cases, they did not seek a civil penalty against the Super PAC.

The Oregon Supreme Court, reversing its longstanding ban on strict campaign finance limits, ruled in favor of a voter approved Multnomah County law putting a $500 limit on campaign donations.

The court concluded contribution limits are not invalid under the state constitution.

The case has been sent back to a lower court to decide whether Multnomah County’s dollar limits themselves are too low, while tossing out the limits Multnomah County voters set on campaign expenditures.

The ruling could lead to new campaign finance limits throughout the state.

Oregon voters will vote on a proposed constitutional amendment this fall allowing limits on the flow of big money into political campaigns.

Oregon has been one of only a handful of states in the country with no limits on political donations and spending.

An order barring the state from enforcing a campaign contribution blackout period of more than two years was reinstated on March 3.

Arkansas Code Annotated 7-6-203(e) prohibits candidates for state offices from accepting campaign contributions more than two years before an election.

In place since 1996, the constitutionality of the law was challenged in June 2019.

The court agreed to stay the injunction, keeping the law in effect while the proceedings continued.

The injunction was affirmed on January 27.

This prompts the plaintiff’s attorney to push for the stay to be lifted, and the law to become unenforceable.

The stay was lifted on March 3, enjoining the state from enforcing the law while the lawsuit is pending.

A date has yet to be determined for a final hearing on the matter.

The former chairman of the Illinois Gaming Board filed suit against the state Executive Ethics Commission.

The commission found that he engaged in unlawful political activity while a board member.

The former chairman argued that state law does not bar contributions by members of state boards and that any such ban on contributions is a violation of the First Amendment.

The investigation began when the chairman contributed to a candidate for state senate and his spouse signed the check.

The Inspector General deemed suspicious 30 other instances of political donations and campaign contributions made while the chairman was on the gaming board.

While acknowledging that spouses of gaming board members are permitted to make contributions, the inspector general looked to the spouse’s history of contributing and to the number of contributions that were to the same committees her husband previously supported.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a campaign finance bill imposing limits on contributions to candidates for elective county and city offices in jurisdictions that have not independently imposed contribution limits.

Currently, a county or a city may, by ordinance or resolution, limit campaign contributions in local elections. However, many counties and cities have not imposed such limits.

Assembly Bill 571 establishes contribution limits of $4,700 per election to a candidate for elective office in a city or county in which the local government has not established a limit.

The bill also allows a local government to establish different limits that are more precisely tailored to the needs of the community.

Assembly Bill 571 becomes effective January 1, 2021.

On October 2, 2019, a U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion and order issuing a preliminary injunction.

The Injunction prohibits the state of New Jersey from enforcing the changes in the law from a bill passed earlier this year concerning disclosure requirements by independent expenditure committees.

Senate Bill 150, which was to take effect on October 15, requires the committees to disclose donors giving more than $10,000 and expenditures over $3,000.

The parties filing the lawsuit, Americans for Prosperity v. Grewal, argue the disclosure requirements are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment.

The preliminary injunction will continue while the lawsuit proceeds.

On September 24, U.S. Senators Jon Tester and Ron Wyden introduced a resolution to reverse a U.S. Treasury Department’s decision limiting IRS disclosure requirements of certain tax-exempt organizations engaging in political activities.

On July 16, the U.S. Treasury Department and the IRS announced certain tax-exempt organizations are no longer required to report the names and addresses of contributors on their annual reports.

This exemption from reporting applies to tax-exempt organizations generally not receiving tax-deductible contributions, such as the National Rifle Association, labor unions, volunteer fire departments, issue-advocacy groups, local chambers of commerce, veterans’ groups, and community service clubs. These organizations are still required to continue to collect and keep the donor information and to make it available to the IRS upon its request.

This exemption does not affect the information required to be reported by charities primarily receiving tax-deductible contributions, such as 501(c)(3) organizations, certain nonexempt private foundations, or 527 political organizations.

Senate Joint Resolution 64, The Spotlight Act, would overturn the exemption and require disclosure to the IRS of the names and information of donors who contribute more than $5,000.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania overturned the Commonwealth’s prohibition on political contributions from gaming-license applicants, licensees, and principals of licensees.

Judge Sylvia Rambo concluded Section 1513 of the Gaming Act is an unconstitutional limit on the First Amendment right of political association. Rambo stated the prohibition furthers a substantially important interest in preventing corruption, but is not closely drawn to achieve that interest.

The judgment opens the possibility for the Legislature to rewrite the statute to be narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose.

The Gaming Control Board is also reviewing the option to appeal the decision to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Illinois Disclosure and Regulation of Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Act.

In 2012, Liberty PAC filed a lawsuit claiming the Illinois campaign finance law violates the First Amendment by restricting contributions from individual donors, allowing political parties to make unlimited donations during a general election, creating a waiver provision that lifts spending limits, and allowing unlimited contributions from legislative caucus committees.

The U.S. District Court dismissed the first three claims at the pleadings stage due to precedent and conducted a bench trial on the fourth issue and ruled for the state.

The U.S. Circuit Court panel affirmed the lower court’s decision in its entirety and the plaintiffs intend to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This week the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Montana’s voter-approved political contribution limits effective immediately. The limits were ruled unconstitutional in 2016 by a federal district judge in Helena and replaced with contributions limits in place in mid-1990’s.

The 9^th U.S. Circuit Court found the contribution limits in question to be “both justified and adequately tailored to the state’s interest in combating quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.”

The initial lawsuit brought in 2011 claimed the campaign finance laws burdened speech and association. The plaintiffs have already announced their plan to appeal this week’s 2-judge majority decision stating there is no evidence campaign contributions have influenced voting by state lawmakers.

Individual contributions to a gubernatorial candidate have been reduced by about $600 while the limit for what a political action committee can give will now be $660 per election, down from $10,610 per election cycle.