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.

A bill introduced yesterday in the Louisiana House would require political committees, candidates, and other persons who file campaign disclosure reports to include a detailed explanation of the purpose of each expenditure. The explanation would be required to contain sufficient information to relate the expenditure to an acceptable use.

According to the Times-Picayune, Reps. Tim Burn and Greg Miller, the sponsors of House Bill 1079, want “better, increased disclosure and less ambiguity about the political or campaign purpose of an expenditure.” If passed, the new reporting requirements would take effect on January 1, 2015.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted a preliminary injunction sought by Delaware Strong Families, who challenged a new Delaware campaign finance law requiring sponsors of third-party advertisements to disclose the identities of their donors.

Specifically, Section 8031 of the Delaware Election Disclosures Act, which became effective January 1, 2012, requires any person who makes an expenditure for a third-party advertisement exceeding $500 during an election period to file a report with the Elections Commission, including the names and addresses of each person who has made contributions to the sponsor of the third-party advertisements exceeding $100.

Delaware Strong Families alleged such donor disclosure requirement was overbroad and therefore unconstitutional. The District Court agreed and enjoined further enforcement of this reporting requirement, noting that the Act is so broadly worded as to include virtually every communication made during an election period, no matter how indirect and unrelated it is to the electoral process.

Lobbying

“Bottom Line” in The Hill.

“K Street firm takes major hit in ruling” by Megan R. Wilson in The Hill.

Florida: “FPL, three other electric utilities, influence legislature through lobbying and campaign donations, report finds” by Susan Salisbury in The Palm Beach Post.

Texas: “Six former Patton Boggs partners open Dallas office of McGuireWoods” by Catherine Ho in The Washington Post.

Campaign Finance

California: “San Diego County’s system for tracking campaign donations called outdated” by Joe Yerardi on KPBS.

District of Columbia: “D.C. mayor in primary fight as ’10 campaign funds probed” by William Selway (Bloomberg News) in the Chicago Tribune.

Nevada: “Despite Disclosure, Dark Money Stays Dark in Nevada” by Robert Maguire in OpenSecrets.org.

New York: “New York Comptroller DiNapoli: Public Campaign Financing Effort ʹFumbledʹ” by Erica Orden in The Wall Street Journal.

Ethics

“Members of Congress Buying and Selling Stocks” by Kent Cooper in Roll Call.

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

Georgia: “Trial begins in Ga. ethics commission suit” by Christina A. Cassidy (Associated Press) in The Washington Times.

Georgia: “Judge: Governor doesn’t have to testify in ethics case” by Aaron Gould Sheinin in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Lobbying

“The Source: Tracking The ʹUnlobbyistsʹ” by Paul Flahive on Texas Public Radio.

“The Lobbying World for the Rest of Us” by Rebecca Gale in Roll Call.

“Congressman retires, shocks Washington by not becoming lobbyist” by Paul Waldman in The Washington Post.

Kentucky: “Lobbyists Spend $4.3 Million In Kentucky General Assembly” by Jonathan Meador in WFPL NPR News.

Campaign Finance

New York: “Cuomo, Lawmakers Adopt Limited Public Campaign Finance for State Comptroller’s Race” by Karen DeWitt in WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

“Activists Push Public Financing Of N.Y. Political Campaigns” by Peter Overby (NPR) on WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Ethics

“Culture of Corruption II: Scandals taint Democratic Party in tough election year” by Valerie Richardson in The Washington Times.

“Privately funded trips common for legislators” by Fredreka Schouten and Deborah Barfield Berry in The Advertiser.

California: “Calif. State Senate Votes To Suspend 3 Embattled Lawmakers” by CBS and The Associated Press on CBS Los Angeles.

Florida: “Florida’s Scott Travels on Corporate Tab as Lobbyists Tag Along” by Toluse Olorunnipa in Bloomberg News.

Missouri: “Jason Kander: Young, In Charge and Taking on Ethics Reform” by J.B. Wogan in Governing.

Missouri: “Pledge asks Missouri lawmakers to refuse gifts from lobbyists” by Rudi Keller in the Columbia Daily Tribune.

Pennsylvania: “Pa. Ethics Law Could Change After Latest Scandal” by Marc Levy on NBC Philadelphia.

Federal:

IRS Rule Would Limit Advocacy Over Nominees

USA Today – Gregory Korte | Published: 3/24/2014

The IRS says a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court or Cabinet secretary should be considered a “candidate” for federal office and is drafting rules to limit how nonprofit groups advocate for or against such nominees. The change in defining a candidate is part of an effort by the Obama administration to clarify how much political activity certain nonprofits can engage in, following last year’s revelation that IRS agents had held up tax-exempt applications for tea party groups.

From the States and Municipalities:

California – FBI: California Sen. Leland Yee took bribes, trafficked guns

Sacramento Bee – Laurel Rosenhall and Jeremy White | Published: 3/26/2014

California Sen. Leland Yee has been charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption as part of a major sting operation spanning the Bay Area. A criminal complaint alleges Yee did favors for an undercover FBI agent in exchange for campaign contributions. Prosecutors said Yee also offered to facilitate a meeting between the undercover agent and an arms dealer, and discussed the types of weapons the agent might need.

Colorado – Colorado Marijuana Regulators Switching Sides to Work for Industry

Denver Post – John Ingold | Published: 3/21/2014

At least three officials at the state agency in Colorado that regulates marijuana businesses have found work doing cannabis industry consulting after leaving the department. The officials say they adhered to ethics rules in switching from the regulators to the regulated, and an expert said the moves are not necessarily a conflict, noting such public-to-private switches are common in many regulated industries. But the moves do show the increasing legitimization of the marijuana industry. And they have caused concern among remaining state officials, who say the moves could send the wrong message to the public.

Connecticut – Philly Flyers Owner: His $10,000 to CT Dems not ‘pay to play’

Connecticut Mirror – Mark Pazniokas | Published: 3/24/2014

Three self-reported complaints were recently accepted by the State Elections Enforcement Commission, all in relation to campaign contributions that donors fear could run afoul of Connecticut’s sweeping ban on donations from contractors. A one-year ban on additional state business is a potential penalty for a principal or employee making a prohibited contribution. Connecticut law places the burden for knowing the statute on the donors, not the campaigns or political committees that are the recipients.

Florida – GOP Insiders Incensed, Fascinated by Tirades of Gov. Rick Scott’s Fundraiser

Tampa Bay Times – Steve Bousquet | Published: 3/26/2014

Billionaire Mike Fernandez was co-finance chairperson of Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s campaign, gave $1 million to his re-election effort, and helped raise much more by opening two of his homes to wealthy Republican donors. Fernandez sat near the first family at the State of the State speech before everything fell apart with his resignation followed by leaked e-mails filed with frustration and armchair quarterbacking, a rare public display of campaign dirty linen.

Nevada – Conservative Group to Pay Fine in Nevada 2010 Case Involving Sandoval Ads

Reno Gazette-Journal – Sandra Chereb (Associated Press) | Published: 3/26/2014

A group that ran hundreds of television advertisements supporting Brian Sandoval for governor in 2010 has agreed to a $40,000 fine for failing to register as a PAC in Nevada. The Alliance for America’s Future, a Virginia group that supports Republican candidates, and the office of Secretary of State Bob Miller reached a settlement on his suit against the organization. Miller said the civil fine is the largest ever imposed for a campaign finance violation in Nevada.

New Jersey – Christie Bridge Scandal: Internal report clears governor, calls for Port Authority restructuring

Newark Star Ledger – Ted Sherman | Published: 3/27/2014

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did not know of his top aides’ plan for a politically motivated traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge, according to lawyers hired by the Christie administration to investigate the “Bridgegate” scandal. But while clearing Christie and his senior staff, the report urged the appointment of a chief ethics officers within the governor’s office. And it called for a restructuring of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

North Carolina – Mayor Cannon Resigns after Corruption Arrest

Charlotte Observer – Mark Washburn, Michael Gordon, and Jim Morrill | Published: 3/27/2014

Patrick Cannon resigned as mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina after he was arrested on public corruption charges, as federal law enforcement officials alleged he accepted a trip to Las Vegas, use of a luxury apartment, and more than $48,000 in cash in exchange for helping smooth out municipal obstacles for undercover agents posing as investors. Cannon had been in the mayor’s office only since early December.

Pennsylvania – With Lawmakers Caught on Tape Accepting Cash, Fresh Calls for Reform

Philadelphia Inquirer – Craig McCoy and Angele Couloumbis | Published: 3/24/2014

State senators are proposing bills to ban Pennsylvania lawmakers from accepting cash gifts. Lloyd Smucker said the legislation was prompted by stories about an aborted sting investigation by the attorney general’s office that captured five Philadelphia politicians, including four state legislators, accepting cash or money orders on tape. Smucker said he was surprised the state allows lawmakers to accept cash gifts, as long as they report them on their annual financial-disclosure forms.

Rhode Island – Few Clues about What Prompted Federal, State Authorities to Raid Rhode Island Statehouse

Columbus Republic – Michelle Smith (Associated Press) | Published: 3/25/2014

Federal and state authorities have refused to comment on the target of their investigation since a raid on Rhode Island Rep. Gordon Fox’s office and home. Fox resigned as House speaker the next day and said he would not seek re-election, but he did not directly address the probe. In his legal practice, Fox performed loan closings and that work got him into trouble with the state Ethics Commission after he failed to report more than $40,000 for work he did for a Providence economic development agency.

Texas – Conservative Activist Michael Quinn Sullivan Fights Lobbyist Label

Dallas Morning News – David Barer | Published: 3/24/2014

Michael Sullivan is the brash leader of the influential Empower Texans, and he is in a battle with the state Ethics Commission over his influence at the Capitol. The commission could stamp Sullivan as a lobbyist and hem in his political activities, but first, its members want to know the sources of the money that props up his nonprofit corporation. Critics contend Sullivan relies on “dark money,” leaving Texans unable to determine who funds his group’s legislative ratings and endorsements, which can affect Republican primaries.

Wisconsin – Gov. Walker Signs Several Bills into Law

WBAY; Associated Press – | Published: 3/27/2014

A bill signed into law 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 donations until June 1. In passing the measure, Republican lawmakers backed off from another change that would have let lobbyists hand over campaign checks from others during the legislative session.

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.

Gov. Scott Walker has signed into law a bill allowing lobbyists to start making campaign donations to candidates seven weeks earlier than previously allowed. 2013 Wisconsin Act 153 allows a lobbyist to personally make political contributions as early as April 15 of a general election year, the same day candidates can circulate petitions for office.

The Act also increases the registration threshold from $25 to $300 for committees making or receiving political contributions.

The Act is effective on March 29, 2014, one day following publication.