San Diego, California’s contribution limits have been adjusted for the 2024 election cycle due to inflation. The maximum donation an individual can make to a candidate in a City Council race has increased from $650 to $750 and the donation limit to candidates for mayor and city attorney has increased from $1,200 to $1,350. This change is one of the largest adjustments in San Diego’s history, following historic inflation of around 7% during the two years since the contribution limits were last increased.

Gov. Brian Kemp signed a bill changing the name of the Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission back to the State Ethics Commission.

The much longer commission name was the product of a major ethics overhaul in 2010.

In addition to the name change, House Bill 572 also clarifies rules for late contribution reporting.

A contribution designated for a general election given close to a primary election date does not need reported within two days.

The new law will take effect on July 1.

The Ohio office of Secretary of State has published increased contribution limits.

The contribution limits for PACs, PCEs and individuals may contribute to statewide candidates, candidates for General Assembly, county parties, PACs, and PCEs increased from $13,704.41 to $15,499.69 per election; and from $41,113.24 to $46,499.08  per calendar year to state parties; and from $20,556.62 to $23,249.54 per calendar year to legislative campaign funds.

The amount of gifts corporations and labor unions may provide per year to a state political party, county political party, or legislative campaign fund, for certain specified purposes, such as facilities; equipment, and supplies, increased from $11,274.23 to $12,751.16.

Mayoral candidate Paul Vallas loaned $100,100 to his campaign after advancing to the April 4 runoff election against Brandon Johnson.

The two candidates may now receive unlimited contributions because contribution limits do not apply in any city race where the self-funding or independent expenditure threshold of $100,000 is exceeded.

The city’s pay-to-play limits on campaign contributions remain in place.

Companies and people doing business with the city or its sister agencies are limited to contributing $1,500 to any one candidate per year.

The Orange County Council has voted to raise the campaign contribution limit from $2,200 to $2,500 per election cycle.

The Orange County Campaign Reform Ordinance requires the board to adjust the campaign contribution limitation in February of every odd year.

The Orange County Council adjusts the contribution limit according to changes in the Consumer Price Index and rounds to the nearest $100.

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.