Lobbying

“Lobbying World” in The Hill.

Hawaii’s SB 2629 Lobbyist Disclosure Bill passes House: “Hawaii lawmakers plow through mountain of bills” by Cathy Bussewitz and Sam Eifling  (Associated Press) in The Republic.

Wisconsin: “Dem legislator: Lobbyists don’t bother talking to us anymore” by Jack Craver in The Cap Times.

Campaign Finance

“Bitcoin players knock on Washington doors” by Jennifer Liberto in CNN Money.

“FCC: All Stations Must Post Political Files Starting In July” by John Eggerton in Broadcasting & Cable.

“Hillary Clinton knocks Supreme Court’s campaign finance decisions” by Dan Merica on CNN.

“Do Campaign Finance Violations Warrant Jail Time? | A Question of Ethics” by C. Simon Davidson in Roll Call.

Minnesota: “Minnesota’s limits on campaign donations to be challenged” by Rachel E. Stassen-Berger in the Star Tribune.

Ohio: “House expects vote on Ohio midterm budget bill” by Julie Carr Smyth (Associated Press) on WTRF.com.

Ethics

Delaware: “Lobbyist fees proposed to fund ethics office” by Jonathan Starkey in The News Journal.

Missouri: “Legislators differ on accepting gifts from lobbyists” by Allyssa D. Dudley in the Salem News.

South Carolina: “SC House panel wants to create larger ethics commission” by Andrew Shain in The State.

Lobbying

“Bottom Line” in The Hill.

Ottawa, Canada: “City rules allow lobbyists to donate to councillors’ campaigns” by Joanne Chianello in the Ottawa Citizen.

Campaign Finance

“FEC Publishes New Contribution Limits for 2013-2014” by Kent Cooper in Roll Call.

Delaware: “Del. lawmakers eye campaign finance bill” by The Associated Press in The Washington Times.

Maine: “Maine rethinking campaign contribution limits after Supreme Court ruling” by Reid Wilson (Washington Post) in the Bangor Daily News.

New York: “NY ethics board tells 4 advocacy groups it won’t shield names of their financial backers” by The Associated Press in The Republic.

Ethics

California: “California lawmakers propose reforms to regain public trust after series of scandals” by Fenit Nirappil (Associated Press) in the Daily Bulletin.

Georgia: “Deal proposes overhaul of Ga. ethics commission” by Phillip Lucas (Associated Press) in The Telegraph.

Georgia: “Another lawsuit from ex-ethics staffer is in the works” by Greg Bluestein in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Pennsylvania: “Pa. Senate committee approves ban on cash gifts” by Amy Worden in The Philadelphia Inquirer.

From the State Legislatures

California: “State lawmakers’ per diem claims topped $1.1M in 2013” by Nick Heynen and Matthew Defour in the Wisconsin State Journal.

Elections

“Report finds states cutting wait times for voters” by Martha T. Moore in USA Today.

Corporations in Iowa are still prohibited from making campaign contributions, despite an attempt by non-profit corporation Iowa Right to Life Committee, Inc. to remove the ban. The Supreme Court of the United States denied review of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case with no comment.

In Iowa Right to Life v. Tooker, plaintiff Iowa Right to Life alleged the ban on corporate contributions is an unconstitutional bar to free speech and equal protection. The Eighth Circuit did not agree, thus upholding the ban.

Lobbying

“Lobbyists kick in for Ready for Hillary” by Anna Palmer in Politico.

Alabama: “Lobbying for former Alabama Legislature limited” by The Associated Press in the Daily Press.

Kentucky: “Ethics Reporter: Health care lobbying tops spending list first two months of 2014 session” by the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission in KyForward.

New York: “Lobbyists ready to get to work now that state budget is completed” by Tom Precious in The Buffalo News.

Wisconsin: “Lobbyist bill draws sharp reactions” by Bill Lueders in The Dunn County News.

Campaign Finance

“High Court Rejects New Campaign Finance Case” by The Associated Press in Time.

“Nancy Pelosi pushes campaign finance reforms” by Lauren French in Politico.

“John Roberts’s rules of money in politics” by Josh Gerstein in Politico.

“Campaign finance ruling shakes political world” by James R. Carroll in The Courier-Journal.

“Rep. Robert Pittenger Pays $31,000 Fine” by Kent Cooper in Roll Call.

California:  “How Will the Change in Campaign Finance Law Affect California?” by Scott Shafer in The California Report.

Connecticut: “Foleys Plead Guilty In Campaign Scheme Linked To Rowland” by Edmund H. Mahony and Jon Lender in The Courant.

Michigan: “Election campaign finance reports in Kalamazoo County to go online under Michigan pilot program” by Alex Mitchell in Michigan Live.

Ethics

“FEC Member Says it Aloud: We’re Dysfunctional” by Charles S. Clark in Government Executive.

Colorado: “Colorado ethics group hears arguments in Gov. Hickenlooper complaint” by Lynn Bartels in The Denver Post.

Georgia: “Former State Ethics Commission Director testifies in court” by Richard Elliot in WSB TV News.

Georgia: “Former ethics attorney said bosses didn’t want deep Deal investigation” by Aaron Gould Sheinin in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Missouri: “Mo. Senate panel endorses ethics law overhaul” by The Associated Press in The Rolla Daily News.

Pennsylvania: “States look harder at rules on gifts to lawmakers” by Amy Worden in The Inquirer.

Rhode Island: “R.I. lawmakers debate ethics oversight bills, hold for further study” by Randal Edgar in The Providence Journal.

West Virginia: “Ethics commission talks board changes” by Phil Kabler in the Charleston Gazette.

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill designed to strengthen campaign finance laws and bolster enforcement. Assembly Bill 800 gives the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) the authority to audit campaign funds and seek court injunctions to force compliance before elections.

Previously, the FPPC was unable to commence audits of committees until after the conclusion of the general election. The bill also gives preference to civil actions filed by the FPPC in court to ensure disclosures happen before the election.

The bill took effect upon signature.

National:

New G.O.P. Bid to Limit Voting in Swing States

New York Times – Steven Yaccino and Lizette Alvarez | Published: 3/29/2014

Some swing states under Republican control are enacting new restrictions on registering and voting that go beyond recent voter identification requirements. The bills, laws, and administrative rules shake up fundamental components of state election systems, including the days and times polls are open and the locations where people vote.

Federal:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap

New York Times – Adam Liptak | Published: 4/2/2014

The U.S. Supreme Court freed wealthy donors to give more money directly to congressional candidates. The conservative majority struck down aggregate limits that barred political donors from giving more than $123,000 in an election cycle to candidates running for seats in the House or Senate. The court said this limit violated the free-speech rights of the donors, and it was not needed to prevent corruption of the political process. The justices noted donors must still abide by rules that prevent them from giving more than $2,600 per election per candidate.

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama – Wren Resigns

Montgomery Advertiser – Kala Kachmar and Brian Lyman | Published: 4/1/2014

Alabama Rep. Greg Wren resigned and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor ethics violation in a deal that will secure his cooperation with a corruption investigation at the Capitol. Court documents said Wren, an insurance agent by trade who served as chairperson of the Joint Legislative Medicaid Committee, tried to insert language in the state budget that would have given American Pharmacy Cooperative an edge in certain Medicaid contracts. At the same times, management with the cooperative helped Wren secure a contract with RxAlly for consulting worth $24,000.

California – Case against State Sen. Yee Raises Fundraising Questions

San Francisco Chronicle – Melody Gutierrez and Carla Marinucci | Published: 3/31/2014

Much of the money donated to California lawmakers comes from groups or individuals with pending business before the Legislature. The recent arrest of state Sen. Leland Yee prompted several lawmakers to suggest it is time to revisit campaign finance reform to fix inadequacies in the law or to, at the very least, stop politicians from using campaign donations to pay for their legal defense following criminal charges.

Connecticut – Co-Conspirators’ Guilty Pleas Make John Rowland a Target

Connecticut Mirror – Mark Pazniokas | Published: 4/1/2014

A former congressional candidate and her husband pleaded guilty in a scheme to set up a phony contract to hide the role played in the campaign by former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, who resigned a decade ago in a corruption scandal. Prosecutors said Lisa Wilson-Foley, Brian Foley, and Rowland entered into an unlawful conspiracy in 2011 to make illegal contributions to Wilson-Foley. Rowland was paid about $35,000 for services to the campaign. The payments originated with Foley and constituted campaign contributions but were not reported to the FEC.

Delaware – Judge Grants Injunction Sought by Conservative Group Challenging Delaware Campaign Finance Law

Greenfield Daily Reporter – Randall Chase (Associated Press) | Published: 3/31/2014

A federal judge ruled in favor of Delaware Strong Families in its challenge to a 2012 state law requiring groups that spend $500 or more during an election period on third-party advertisements to disclose the source of donations. The judge issued a preliminary injunction that halts this reporting requirement.

District of Columbia – Councilwoman Bowser Defeats Incumbent Gray in D.C. Mayoral Primary

Washington Post – Mike DeBonis and Aaron Davis | Published: 4/1/2014

District of Columbia Councilperson Muriel Bowser won an upset victory in the Democratic primary for mayor in a race that turned on the integrity of the incumbent, Vincent Gray. Only three weeks before the election, Gray was comfortably ahead in the polls when a donor pleaded guilty to illegally pumping nearly $700,000 into Gray’s campaign four years ago. The donor said the mayor had participated in the plot. Gray denied knowledge of the under-the-table effort on his behalf, but overnight, a listless race became a referendum on the mayor’s credibility.

Georgia – Trial Begins in Lawsuit against Georgia Ethics Commission

Marietta Daily Journal – Christina Cassidy (Associated Press) | Published: 4/1/2014

A jury will decide whether they believe the claims brought by former state ethics commission Executive Secretary Stacey Kalberman in a wrongful termination lawsuit, who says she was forced out her job in an effort to stifle an investigation of Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, or side with state attorneys who argue she left after her salary was reduced by 30 percent for budgetary reasons in 2011 and it was unrelated to the governor’s ethics probe.

Illinois – NRA Lobbyist Breaks Hunting Law, Then Lobbies to Change It

Chicago Sun-Times – Dave McKinney | Published: 4/1/2014

Todd Vandermyde, the National Rifle Association’s Illinois lobbyist, was fined $120 last December for breaking a state hunting law. A month later, he worked with House Minority Leader Jim Durkin to rewrite the law he broke. “If I … changed the law because I got a ticket, people would be screaming bloody murder; I don’t think it’s any different when someone with the level of influence and access that he has does it, too,” said Rep. Kelly Cassidy.

Kentucky – 2014 Changes Will Strengthen Kentucky Ethics Law

Russellville News-Democrat & Leader – George Troutman (Legislative Ethics Commission) | Published: 4/3/2014

Kentucky lawmakers gave final approval to House Bill 28, which makes significant changes to the lobbying statute, including a “no cup of coffee” rule, meaning lobbyists and their employers will be prohibited from buying a meal, or even a cup of coffee, for an individual legislator, candidate, or the spouse or child of a lawmaker or candidate. In this opinion piece, George Troutman of the Legislative Ethics Commission delineates the reforms, and the positive effects he believes will ensue if Gov. Steve Beshear signs the measure into law.

Missouri – Pledge Asks Missouri Lawmakers to Refuse Gifts from Lobbyists

Columbia Tribune – Rudi Keller | Published: 3/30/2014

Missouri Rep. John Wright is calling on lawmakers to sign a pledge promising not to accept gifts from lobbyists. Last year, lobbyists purchased almost $1 million worth of meals, trips, golf outings, and sports tickets for lawmakers, including tickets to the World Series and University of Missouri football and basketball games. “Most of the people here are good people, but a lot of bad habits have developed and there is a culture of lobbyist gifts and a culture of entitlement that needs to be completely reset,” said Wright.

Montana – Commissioner Says Senate Majority Leader Art Wittich Broke Campaign Laws

The Daily Journal – Matt Volz (Associated Press) | Published: 4/1/2014

Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl concluded Senate Majority Leader Art Wittich violated the law by coordinating with Western Tradition Partnership and other entities to accept illegal corporate donations in his 2010 primary election campaign. Motl asked a state judge to weigh his findings and decide whether Wittich’s actions merit removal from office and from the 2014 election ballot.

New York – Capitol Corruption Panel’s Demise Angers Watchdogs

New York Times – Jesse McKinley and Thomas Kaplan | Published: 3/31/2014

Ethics provisions attached to the state budget signed into law by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo disbands the Commission to Investigate Public Corruption, which was formed last July and given a broad mandate to restore public trust in government. Cuomo said the reforms he wanted would be accomplished by changes to campaign finance reporting requirements and bribery laws, and the public financing of elections in this year’s race for state comptroller.

Pennsylvania – Pa. House Leaders Impose Ban on Most Cash Gifts

Philadelphia Inquirer – Mark Scolforo (Associated Press) | Published: 4/2/2014

Legislative leaders adopted a new ethics rule that prohibits members of the Pennsylvania House from accepting cash gifts, although money from specified close family members and non-lobbyist friends is allowed. A spokesperson for House Speaker Sam Smith said the policy change was made in response to reports in The Philadelphia Inquirer that four House members accepted payments from a lobbyist who was part of a sting operation.

Wisconsin – Lobbyist Bill Draws Sharp Reactions

WisconsinWatch.org – Bill Leuders | Published: 4/1/2014

Senate Bill 655, which was signed into law recently by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, allows lobbyists to start making personal donations the day candidates can circulate petitions for office, which is April 15. Under the previous law, they could not make any contributions until June 1. The bill has been assailed for both its process and its substance. Meanwhile, some lament that this dissent led to it being watered down.

State and Federal Communications produces a weekly summary of national news, offering more than 80 articles per week focused on ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance.

News You Can Use is a news service provided at no charge only to clients of our online Executive Source Guides, or ALERTS™ consulting clients.

Lobbying

New York: “Lobbying in New York hit $210 million in 2013–3rd highest total ever” by Ken Lovett in the New York Daily News.

McCutcheon v. FEC

“Supreme Court strikes down limits on overall federal campaign donations” by Robert Barnes in The Washington Post.

“Excerpts of high court campaign finance opinions” by The Associated Press in The Washington Post.

“State Impact of the Supreme Court’s Campaign Donations Ruling” by Ryan Murphy and Aman Batheja in Governing.

“Court kills limits on campaign cash” by Benjamin Goad in The Hill.

“Lobbyists groan as fundraising cap falls” by Kevin Bogardus in The Hill.

“Campaign Finance Ruling Winners: The Political Pros” by Frank James on NPR.

“After campaign finance ruling, battle for Congress likely to heat up” by Lisa Mascaro and Michael A. Memoli in the Los Angeles Times.

“Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling” by Seung Min Kim in Politico.

“Supreme Court Decision Puts Members of Congress at Risk” opinion piece by Kent Cooper in Politico.

Rhode Island: “R.I. reaction to Supreme Court’s campaign-finance ruling divided along party lines” by Thomas J. Morgan in The Providence Journal.

Campaign Finance

Delaware: “Democrats plan campaign finance reform bills” by Jonathan Starkey in The News Journal.

On April 3, the Puerto Rico Office of the Electoral Comptroller issued an informational newsletter in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC. In McCutcheon, the Court held federal aggregate campaign contribution limits unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, as they do not further the permissible government interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.

While the Court referenced similar aggregate limits in other states and jurisdictions, it did not go so far as to declare them unconstitutional. Therefore, the office is not taking any immediate action with regard to the Puerto Rico aggregate campaign finance limits established in 2011. It will request an opinion from the Puerto Rico Secretary of Justice to determine how the Court’s decision relates to Puerto Rico law.

The office will issue new informational bulletins as further developments arise.

The aggregate contribution limits for individuals and PACs contributing to state candidates are expected to be unenforceable following the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission repeal of federal aggregate limits. The federal case challenging Wisconsin’s aggregate limits has been on hold pending McCutcheon. Young v. GAB seeks to remove aggregate limits set to prohibit even a $1 contribution if the individual donor has given the maximum $10,000 contribution to a single candidate.

The Government Accountability Board (GAB) has moved to dismiss the case, arguing the complaint does not sufficiently allege Mr. Young is harmed by the limit.

Today, in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (docket 12-536), the United States Supreme Court ruled aggregate limits on federal campaign contributions are an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of political expression and association.

Background:

Federal law imposes two types of limits on individual political contributions.

Base limits restrict the amount an individual may contribute to:

• A candidate committee;
• A national party committee;
• A state, local, and district party committee; and
• A political action committee.

Biennial limits restrict the aggregate amount an individual may contribute biennially to:

• Candidate committees; and
• All other committees.

Shaun McCutcheon is an Alabama businessman who regularly makes political contributions to Republican candidates and the Republican National Committee. McCutcheon wanted to contribute $26,200 more to candidates and committees than the aggregate ceiling would allow. The Republican National Committee was also a plaintiff in the suit.

McCutcheon did not challenge the base limits on contributions to individual candidates and entities, but, wanting to give to more candidates and political entities than allowed by law, he challenged the aggregate limits.

Decision:

In a 5-4 decision, with the majority joined by Justice Thomas in a separate concurring opinion, the Court found aggregate limits do not further the permissible government interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito, found the aggregate contribution limits do not further the only governmental interest accepted as legitimate in Buckley v Valeo. The 1976 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court found aggregate limits to be a permissible government regulation to curtail corruption or the appearance of corruption.

In McCutcheon, the Court stated, “Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics.”

The Court equated political contributions with “political campaign speech,” writing, “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Effect on other jurisdictions: (updated June 16, 2014)

The McCutcheon decision’s effects extend beyond the federal campaign finance laws.

At its May 14, 2014 meeting, the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission announced it would no longer enforce the state’s aggregate contribution limit absent further direction from the General Assembly or a court of competent jurisdiction. The commission stressed, however, the base contribution limits would remain in full force and effect.

In a policy statement dated June 4, 2014, the Maine Commission on Government Ethics and Practices stated it would no longer enforce the yearly $25,000 aggregate contribution limit applicable to individuals and entities contained in Maine Revised Statutes section 1015(3), barring guidance from the legislature or a court. The policy statement noted the commission’s intention to study the issues and perhaps propose legislation during the next legislative session.

The Maryland State Board of Elections issued a guidance memo stating the board would no longer enforce a $10,000 aggregate limit on donors’ contributions to state candidates during a four-year election cycle, while stressing the $4,000 limit on personal contributions to any one candidate was still in place.

The Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) announced it will no longer enforce the state’s $12,500 aggregate limit on the amount an individual may contribute to all candidates, but will continue to enforce the $5,000 aggregate limit on contributions by individuals to party committees.

A provision in Minnesota’s campaign finance law known as the “special sources limit” will no longer be enforced as applied to individual large donors. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law with respect to individual large donors in response to a challenge by the Institute for Justice on First Amendment grounds. Under section 10A.27(11) of the Minnesota Statutes, the special sources limit prohibits a campaign from raising more than 20 percent of its total contributions from lobbyists, political committees, and large donors contributing more than one half of the individual contribution limit. Donovan issued the injunction in light of the precedent set by McCutcheon. The defendants have the opportunity to appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If they choose not to appeal, the case will proceed to a final ruling at the district court level.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down a campaign finance law limiting contributions to super PACs. Sections 14-114(8) and 14-126 of the New York Election Law imposed an annual aggregate contribution limit of $150,000 per contributor. Plaintiff New York Progress and Protection PAC challenged the aggregate contribution limits on First Amendment grounds. Citing the precedent established in Citizens United and McCutcheon, the judge enjoined New York’s aggregate contribution limit as an unconstitutional ban on free speech. In its May 2014 meeting, the State Board of Elections determined the $150,000 yearly aggregate limit on political contributions from individuals can no longer be enforced in light of recent federal court decisions. New York campaign finance law imposes a similar aggregate limit of $5,000 on a corporation’s yearly contributions. The board made no ruling with regard to the corporate limit; however that limit is being challenged in federal court.

On April 3, 2014, the Puerto Rico Office of the Electoral Comptroller issued an informational newsletter in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. While the Court referenced similar aggregate limits in other states and jurisdictions, it did not go so far as to declare them unconstitutional. Therefore, the office is not taking any immediate action with regard to the Puerto Rico aggregate campaign finance limits established in 2011. It will request an opinion from the Puerto Rico Secretary of Justice to determine how the Court’s decision relates to Puerto Rico law. The office will issue new informational bulletins as further developments arise.

On April 16, 2014, the Rhode Island Board of Elections voted to support the creation of legislation eliminating aggregate political contribution limits. The vote was in reaction to the McCutcheon decision. State law currently prohibits an individual from making contributions of more than $10,000 in the aggregate to more than one candidate, political action committee (PAC), or political party committee or to a combination of candidates, PACs, and political party committees within a calendar year.

In Vermont, Senate Bill 82 added an aggregate contribution limit of $40,000 per election cycle, which was to take effect January 1, 2015. However, the implementation of the aggregate contribution limit was contingent on the Supreme Court ruling in favor of aggregate limits in McCutcheon. Because the Supreme Court in fact ruled against aggregate limits, Vermont’s aggregate limit will not go into effect.

Wisconsin’s aggregate limits had already been challenged in Young v. Government Accountability Board. The parties in that case agreed to put the case on hold until the McCutcheon decision was issued. Following the ruling, the Government Accountability Board reached a settlement in which it agreed the aggregate contribution limits for individuals and PACs contributing to state candidates were no longer enforceable.

The Wyoming Joint Corporations, Appropriations, and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee ordered a draft bill to repeal the state’s aggregate contribution limits, which conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon.

In light of the ruling in McCutcheon, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission announced it would no longer enforce the aggregate limits on contributions to city and school board candidates. Limits on contributions to individual candidates remain in place.

The San Francisco Ethics Commission adopted a resolution stating it will not enforce the aggregate limit on contributions to city candidates in light of the McCutcheon ruling. The Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code imposes an aggregate limit of $500 multiplied by the number of city elective offices to be voted on in the election. The city’s $500 limit on contributions from an individual to a single city candidate remains in full force.

Analysis:

Quid pro quo corruption narrowly defined:

The Court maintained a narrow definition of quid pro quo corruption, preventing the government from limiting the First Amendment right to make contributions to as many candidates as an individual would like, within the base limits of contributions.

In the decision, the Court marked a solid delineation between corruption and appreciation: “[T]here is a clear, administrable line between money beyond the base limits funneled in an identifiable way to a candidate—for which the candidate feels obligated—and money within the base limits given widely to a candidate’s party—for which the candidate, like all other members of the party, feels grateful. . . . To recast such shared interest, standing alone, as an opportunity for quid pro quo corruption would dramatically expand government regulation of the politi­cal process.”

The Court found the possi­bility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption.

The Court wrote, “The Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candi­dates it may endorse.”

Arguing against the dissent’s argument that corruption could still occur even without the circumvention of the base contribution limits, the majority found such an argument would broaden the definition of quid pro quo corruption. The Court stated the dissent’s interpretation “dangerously broadens the . . . definition of quid pro quo corruption . . . and targets as corruption the general, broad-based support of a political party.”

Circumvention of base limits:

The Court found the argument that aggregate contributions could circumvent base contribution limits unconvincing.

The majority said the basis for allowing the law on aggregate limits to stand falls on “speculative” scenarios of corruption, which the Court found “highly implausible” and “hard to believe.” The Court said “experience and common sense” foreclose on many of the scenarios of schemes to funnel money, including one scenario the District Court found had merit. The Court found, “Based on what we can discern from experience, the indiscriminate ban on all contributions above the aggre­gate limits is disproportionate to the Government’s inter­est in preventing circumvention.”

The Court stressed that once an individual reaches the aggregate limit, the law denies “the individual all ability to exercise his expressive and associational rights by contributing to someone who will advocate for his policy preferences.”

Disclosure:

The Court also argued disclosure of contributions “minimizes the poten­tial for abuse of the campaign finance system.”

The majority maintained lifting the aggregate limits encourages money away from entities not subject to disclosure: “Indi­viduals can, for example, contribute unlimited amounts to 501(c) organizations, which are not required to publicly disclose their donors.”

Citing Citizens United, Justice Roberts wrote, “Disclosure requirements burden speech, but—unlike the aggregate limits—they do not impose a ceiling on speech.” In Citizens United, the Court held 8-1 that laws requiring the disclosure of political contribution were constitutional.

Legislative alternatives suggested by the Court:

The majority opinion suggested Congress could create other legislation to curtail circumvention of the base limits, such as enacting legislation targeting restrictions on transfers among candidates and political committees.

Additionally they wrote, “Congress might also consider a modified version of the aggregate limits, such as one that prohibits donors who have contributed the current maximum sums from further contributing to political committees that have indicated they will support candidates to whom the donor has already contributed.”

Overturning Buckley v Valeo’s holding on aggregate limits:

In overturning the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court Buckley v Valeo’s ruling on aggregate limits, the Court found the 38-year-old decision did not thoroughly address aggregate limits in its analysis. The Court also found subsequent laws enacted have “considerably strengthened” statutory safeguards against circumventing base limits through the transfer of contributions between parties and political committees. Additionally the Court argues Buckley did not address the “overbreadth challenge” with respect to the aggregate limits.

The Court rejected an alternative provided in the Supreme Court’s prior Buckley decision finding a person could personally volunteer for a candidate. The majority found “personal volunteering is not a realistic alternative for those who wish to support a wide variety of candidates or causes.”

The Court also heavily relied on campaign finance cases decided in the last few years, such as Citizens United v FEC and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett.

Justice Thomas, in his separate opinion concurring with the majority ruling, writes Buckley “denigrates core First Amendment speech and should be overruled.”

Today, the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) announced it will no longer enforce the state’s aggregate political contribution limit for the amount an individual may contribute to candidates.

The law, G.L. §55-7A(a)(5), limits the aggregate amount an individual can contribute to all candidates to $12,500. The OCPF made its decision based on today’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission, which found aggregate limits on federal campaign contributions are an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of political expression and association.

However, the OCPF is going to review the decision more closely before deciding whether the $5,000 aggregate limit on contributions by individuals to party committees can remain standing. On its webpage, the OCPF stated, “The statutory provisions at the federal level that were analyzed by the Court in McCutcheon differ substantially from the law in Massachusetts, and a determination on the applicability of the ruling in this area will be made after careful review.”

Today the United States Supreme Court ruled that aggregate limits on federal campaign contributions are unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision, with a separate majority opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court found aggregate limits do not further the permissible government interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption.

The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, sought to allow Shaun McCutcheon to make political contributions to several federal candidates exceeding the two-year aggregate limit set in 2 U.S.C §441a(a)(3)(A). The plaintiff had argued the limit is unconstitutional because it violates a citizen’s right to speak and to associate with not just any candidate, but every candidate of his choosing. The Supreme Court had decided to grant a review of the case in February 2013 and oral arguments were made on October 8, 2013.

Photo of the United State Supreme Court Building courtesy of Mfield on Wikimedia Commons.

Democratic legislative leaders are reassessing campaign finance practices and have canceled a lucrative golf fundraiser scheduled for the weekend. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Sen. Kevin de León announced plans to conduct a “vigorous review” of fundraising practices and campaign finance laws following the suspension of Sen.

Leland Yee and two other senators involved in separate criminal investigations.

The senate leaders announced the cancellation of the Pro Tem Cup, an annual golf fundraiser at Torrey Pines in San Diego. Tickets were to benefit the state Democratic Party with a price range from $15,000 to $65,000 per person.

Photo of the California Senate Chamber courtesy of David Monniaux on Wikimedia Commons.

Lobbying

“Lobbying World” in The Hill.

“Corporate Lobbyists Assail Tax Overhaul They Once Cheered” by Eric Lipton and Jonathan Weisman in The New York Times.

“Revolving door spins for Connecticut delegation” by Ana Radelat in the Connecticut Mirror.

California: “Indicted lobbyist keeps clients, political access” by Mitch Blacher in ABC 10 San Diego News.

Campaign Finance

“$100K in Campaign Funds Given To Charity” by Kent Cooper in Roll Call.

New Jersey: “Christie’s Contractors: Backers Barred From Donating Found Loophole” by Eliza Newlin Carney in Roll Call.

Pennsylvania: “Stilp alleges in lawsuit that ethics rulings give incumbents a re-election advantage” by Jan Murphy in The Patriot News.

Ethics

“FEC opens case on Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign” by Kevin Diaz in the Houston Chronicle.

California: “California senator suggests an ethics ombudsman” by Jim Miller in The Sacramento Bee.

District of Columbia: “Scandal-plagued DC mayor ousted in primary” by Rebecca Shabad in The Hill.

Georgia: “Jury hears opening statements in ethics trial” by Kate Brumback in The Telegraph.

Louisiana: “Ethics bill spurred by ‘Louisiana Purchased’ series passes Senate: Snapshot” by Lauren McGaughy in The Times-Picayune.

Missouri: “Missouri bill would require lawmakers to pay lobbyists back for gifts” by The Associated Press in the Kansas City Star.

Pennsylvania: “Pa. lawmaker tells how he declined bizarre cash offer made in Rotunda” by Brad Bumsted in the Tribune-Review.