Federal:

How One Criminal Case Hit K Street

Hybrid PACs: Super PACs and Traditional PACs Can Merge

Lobbyists In On ‘Super’ Secrets

OMB Finalizes Details on White House Lobbying Reform Rules

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama

Commission’s Opinions Further Define 2010 Ethics Law

Delaware

Colbert Takes Satirical Swipe at Abuse of Delaware Spending Disclosure Laws

Minnesota

Disclosure Rules Apply, Campaign Finance Board Says

New Jersey

N.J. Ethics Reform Efforts Bogged Down for Year

New Mexico

New Mexico Governor Signs Bill to Close Loopholes in State Contract Bidding

New York

NYC Mayor Cross-Examined at Ex-Operative’s Trial

Texas

Recall Case Likely to Extend Beyond El Paso

Utah

Lobbyists Want Keys to the Gym and Valet Parking at Capitol

Virginia

Trackers an Evolving but Undeniable Political Force

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.

Jim Sedor is editor of News You Can Use.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will no longer prohibit nonconnected political committees from accepting corporate and labor organization contributions, provided the political committee maintains and deposits those contributions into separate bank accounts.

The Commission will also not limit the amounts permissible sources can contribute to such accounts.

In an statement released by the FEC, it stated, consistent with its agreement to a stipulated order and consent judgment in Carey v. FEC, it would no longer enforce 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3), as well as any implementing regulations, against any nonconnected political committee with regard to contributions from individuals, political committees, corporations, and labor organizations under certain conditions.

A single committee may now contribute directly to candidates and political committees, and make independent expenditures, separating the funds only by using two separate bank accounts. The committee must maintain the statutory limits on the solicitation of funds used for direct contributions while it may simultaneously seek unlimited funds for use in their independent expenditures.

The FEC intends to develop new regulations and amend its reporting forms. Until that time, the Commission says committees should follow the procedures the FEC outlines in its current statement, which is located here.

This post follows up  previous articles by George Ticoras, “FEC Agrees Not to Enforce Some Laws Against NDPAC” and “One PAC Is Enough.”

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board released a statement of guidance that details when groups are required to disclose donors who support or oppose a ballot initiative.

The guidelines suggest that a group that is involved in multiple activities including the support or opposition of ballot initiatives must determine how much of a contribution is directed to a ballot initiative influencing effort.  Money specifically designated for ballot question expenditure purposes and money given in response to an express or implied solicitation to support a group’s campaign to promote or defeat a ballot question is considered a contribution for the purpose of promoting or defeating a ballot question which requires donor disclosure.

The Campaign Finance Board will consider adopting the guidelines at its next meeting.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued an Advisory Opinion stating a “project” created by a trade association may make certain communications to the general public asking individuals to contribute directly to particular federal candidates.

The Utah Bankers Association (U.B.A.) had requested the Advisory Opinion. It intends to solicit the general public through its website and e-mail, as well as through the website of “Friends of Traditional Banking,” a project created for this purpose. There will be no coordination with any candidate and no contributions will be accepted or forwarded to federal candidate’s committees.

In Advisory Opinion 2011-14, the Commission concluded the expenses for soliciting contributions through a trade association’s own website and e-mail is not an in-kind contribution because an internet communication is not a “public communication” if it “is not placed for a fee on another person’s website,” and therefore does not meet the content prong test of coordinated communications. The Commission also found U.B.A.’s plan is not “electioneering communications” which are limited to broadcast, cable, or satellite communications

Other questions related to the U.B.A. request were also addressed in the opinion.

Only lobbyists in Alaska who are constituents in a state candidate’s newly certified district may donate to a candidate’s campaign, an Advisory Opinion from the Alaska Public Offices Commission has declared.

Because a lobbyist residing in a candidate’s district may contribute to a candidate, Representative Bob Lynn requested an opinion regarding whether a lobbyist in his current district could donate to his campaign when he or she may not be a constituent in his proposed new voting district.

Advisory Opinion 11-14-CD concludes candidates “will only be able to accept donations from lobbyists residing in the new district.”

Presently, only candidates for the proposed new districts, and not the current districts, are being certified by the Division of Elections. In its analysis, the Advisory Opinion also articulates, “Whether or not a lobbyist resides in the candidate’s district is determined on the day the contribution is accepted.”

Federal:

Business Executives Call for End to Anonymous Cash

In Turn to Politics, Facebook Starts a PAC

Political Embezzlement Rises as U.S. Campaign Accounts Swell

Solyndra’s Lobbying Not Disclosed by Energy under Stimulus Guidelines

From the States and Municipalities:

Colorado

Campaign Finance Law Argued Before Colorado Supreme Court

Florida

After ‘Wild West,’ Palm Beach County Lobbyists Face New Rules

Indiana

Federal Judge Strikes Down Portion of Indiana ‘Robo-Call’ Ban

Maryland

State Senator’s Future Hangs in the Balance at Corruption Trial

Minnesota

Campaign Finance Board Releases Guidelines on Ballot Initiatives

Pennsylvania

Ex-Judge Gets 17 1/2 Years in Pa. Kickbacks Case

Rhode Island

Arrested Rhode Island Representative Won’t Resign, Will Run Again

Tennessee

Tennessee Lawmakers’ Ethics Panel Has Own Critics

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.

Jim Sedor is editor of News You Can Use.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has issued a reminder regarding the application of rule g-37 to federal election campaigns of issuer officials.

In the notice, the MSRB reminds “brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers” of prohibitions outlined in previous MSRB guidance notices, which highlight the rules and prohibitions concerning solicitations and contributions for certain state and local officials seeking election to federal office.

Generally, issuer officials are directly or indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the hiring of a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer for municipal securities business.

The reminder can be found here.

The San Bernardino County supervisors voted to endorse a plan to limit campaign contributions at their September 27, 2011 meeting. The supervisors further voted to direct the county counsel’s office to draft an ordinance to be voted on by the supervisors at a future meeting.

The current plan would allow individuals to donate up to $3,900 per election cycle. Small contributor committees would be permitted to donate $7,800 per election cycle.

Executive Sourcebook on Lobbying Laws:

1. We are separating the penalties so you will see what they are for registration, reporting, and gift violations.

2. Does the jurisdiction have a document retention policy?

3. Is gift splitting allowed?

4. We are also separating the gift restrictions for lobbyists and non-lobbyists.

Executive’s Sourcebook on Political Contributions:

1. What is the jurisdiction’s document retention policy?

2. What restrictions are there on fundraising, as applied both to corporations attending a political event and as applied to corporations holding its own fundraiser?

Executive’s Sourcebook on Procurement Lobbying:

1. Restrictions on pre-RFP communications between a bidder and the procurement department?

2. Are there any post-RFP “cone of silence” restrictions?

3. Difference between “bidder” and “contractor.”

It continues to be our goal to be your #1 online resource for lobbying, political contributions, and procurement lobbying.

Until next month, let your fingers do the walking at www.stateandfed.com and see the amount of information available to you and your organization.

Elizabeth Z. Bartz
President and CEO

Two San Bernardino County supervisors will introduce a proposal at the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 27, 2011 which would create a law regulating political contributions for county elections.

The supervisors hope to impose and enforce limits on contributions from individuals, businesses, and political action committees contributing to county elections.

The image of the San Bernardino County Seal by Jetijones on Wikipedia.

National:

Election Spending to Exceed $6 Billion Thanks Partly to Jim Bopp

Twitter to Launch Political Advertising

Federal:

K Street Cool to Obama Lobbying Plan

Watchdog Spotlights Lawmaker Ethics in ‘Most Corrupt’ Report

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama

Former Governor Riley Gets Ethics Training He Pushed

California

California Pension Managers Fined for Unreported Gifts

Connecticut

‘Shock Jock’ Hal Turner Acquitted in Connecticut Threats Case

District of Columbia

Wells Drafts D.C. Bill to Limit Lobbyists’ Influence

Illinois

The Price of Influence in Chicago

Louisiana

Sugar Bowl in Violation of Tax Law with Purchases to Fundraiser

Missouri

T.D. El-Amin Gets Record Ethics Fine

Montana

Supreme Court Looks at Campaign Finance for Political Spending

Oklahoma

Oklahoma High Court Hears Former Senator’s Appeal

Pennsylvania

Soon, Lobbyists Must Register

Wisconsin

Judge: Wisconsin campaign law is unconstitutional

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.

Jim Sedor is editor of News You Can Use.

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution seeking to reverse the ruling of the Citizens United decision has been reintroduced in Congress.

Congressman John Conyers and Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards, co-sponsors of House Joint Resolution 78, want to give Congress and the states specific authority to regulate corporate expenditures on political activity. The amendment reads “nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office.”

In Congresswoman Donna F. Edward’s press release she states, “Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United threatened ‘to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation’ and how right he was. Since that flawed ruling was issued, campaign spending by outside groups including corporations surged more than four-fold to reach nearly $300 million in the 2010 election cycle.”

The amendment also reads “nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”

Salant begins with: “Attorney James Bopp Jr. has spent 30 years fighting limits on campaign spending, and next year’s political landscape could be transformed by his labor: An election season in which at least $6 billion is likely to be spent, more than $700 million higher than 2008.”

The article assesses the increase we are seeing in political spending. It also details Bopp’s landmark legal challenges over the years,  his loyalty to his home state of Indiana, and how free speech is at the heart of his mission.

For the full text of the article, got to “ Election Spending to Exceed $6 Billion Thanks Partly to Jim Bopp.”

Politico today reports that Twitter will be offering the opportunity for political campaigns to run ads on it social network.

The article, “Twitter to launch political advertising” by Ben Smith, says Twitter has had five years of observing online behavior. Like Google with its ads, Twitter wishes to cash in on what should be a great money-maker.

As for the issue of disclosure, Smith spoke with Twitter’s government liaison Adam Sharp, who said disclosure statements probably are not legally necessary for their ads. But Twitter will offer the ability to show “paid for by” information via a mouse-over on the paid Tweet.

It will be interesting to see if any regulation springs from this new development.