Legislators have introduced bills to remove limitations on the amount of money they can accept from PACs.  Senate Bill 3645 and companion House Bill 3281, remove the aggregate limitations on PAC donations to candidates.  The bills also remove the reporting requirements for large contributions made within 10 days of an election and remove an existing prohibition on insurance companies making campaign contributions.

Senate Speaker Pro Tempore Bo Watson, who introduced the senate bill, has stated the bill is a logical follow through to Senate Bill 1915 enacted last year that authorized direct corporate contributions to state candidates and treats corporations as if they were PACs for reporting purposes.

National:

Wealthier People More Likely To Lie or Cheat, Study Says

Federal:

K Street Democrats Warn Clients

Romney and Obama Super-PAC Backers Also Spent Big Dollars on Lobbying

Two Ads Sired Five Years Apart Spark Fight over Election Rules

From the States and Municipalities:

District of Columbia

Elections Board Backs Initiative to Ban Corporate Campaign Giving

Florida

Ethics Commission Votes to Restrict Doling Out of Free Tickets to Politicians

Florida

State Rep. Richard Steinberg Resigns over Stalker-Like Text Messages

Illinois

Relatives of Lobbyists, Campaign Donors Got Lawmakers’ Help to Enter U of I

Maine

Justices Shun Appeal of Group that Fought Maine Gay Marriage

Maryland

Baltimore Co. Public Ethics Law Falls Short of State Standards

Maryland

Garagiola’s Lobbying Work Wasn’t Included on Maryland Ethics Forms from 2001 to 2003

Montana

Judge Blocks More Montana Campaign Finance Laws

New Mexico

Lap-Dance Extortion Details Revealed

Oklahoma

Judge in Mike Morgan Trial Drops All of Case against Oklahoma Lobbyist, Part of Case against Attorney

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.

The Nebraska Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments concerning the state’s “fair fight” campaign finance law on Wednesday, March 7, 2012.

The Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission voted unanimously in August to stop enforcement of the 1992 law aimed at leveling the playing field in state political races following a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the state of Arizona where a similar law was deemed unconstitutional.

Under the law, candidates could qualify for “fair fight” money from the state if they adhered to voluntary spending limits and their opponent had exceeded such limits.

In the spring of 2011, a draft presidential executive order was leaked to the public. The order would require every entity submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within the two years prior to submission of their offer. The disclosure requirement included contributions made to federal candidates, parties, and committees by the bidding entity, its officers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control. Contributions made to parties for independent expenditures and electioneering communications would also be reported. These disclosures would be required whenever the aggregate amount of the contributions and expenditures by the bidding entity exceed $5,000.

Reaction to the order was swift. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, writing on behalf of a coalition of more than 80 business groups and trade associations, strongly protested the proposed executive order. Meanwhile, a letter in support of the order, signed by more than 30 public interest groups, urged full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures by federal government contractors. U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo sent a letter to President Obama, signed by more than 60 members of the House, in support of the proposed executive order.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Small Business Committee held a joint hearing to examine the order, evaluate its impact and consequences on the federal acquisition system, and determine whether it introduced politics into the procurement process. Bills opposing the proposed order were introduced in both the House and the Senate. Finally, a compromise amendment, precluding an executive agency from requiring a vendor bidding on a contract to disclose political contributions, was added to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012. The act passed and was signed by President Obama at the end of 2011.

Passage of the bill did not end calls for disclosures of political contributions from federal contractors, however. Petitions with more than 100,000 signatures were submitted by Public Citizen and MoveOn.org to the White House, urging the President to require federal contractors to disclose their political contributions after the bidding process is completed and a federal contract is awarded.

Utah Representative Kraig Powell has introduced a bill prohibiting anonymous cash contributions over $50 and requiring forfeiture of the contributions.

As written in HB 493, anonymous contributions over $50 to state and local candidates must be given to the governmental entity where the position the candidate is pursuing exists, such as to a school district’s general fund for a local school board candidate. Other beneficiaries of the anonymous political donations over $50 would be the state’s general fund, and county and municipality general funds.

Reporting by the candidates of the transferred anonymous contribution would not be required.

The Times Developer Network is now offering data from reports received by the Federal Election Commission through its Campaign Finance API (application programming interface). What was once a set of reports updated weekly, or in some cases daily, is now updated every 15 minutes.

You can find campaign finance information for the presidential and congressional candidates, PACs and super PACs, electronic filings by date and type, independent expenditures, and electioneering communications.

For the full story, be sure to read “Campaign Finance Data in Real Time” by Derek Willis in The New York Times.

You’ll be interested to also see “Campaign finance updates in real time? There’s an API for that” by Meranda Watling in 10,000 Words.

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to Maine election laws brought by the National Organization for Marriage claiming Maine’s reporting requirements for political action committees are vague and over-broad.

The Supreme Court let stand the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold the constitutionality of the laws requiring the disclosure of contributions and expenditures in elections by PACs and by independent groups.

Maine defended its laws by arguing the laws were designed to inform voters about who is spending money to influence their votes.

Federal:

Foster Friess Aspirin Joke Shows Danger to Candidates of Outside Political Groups

Lobbyists Decertify after Obama Ban

From the States and Municipalities:

Arizona

Fiesta Bowl Case: Junker pleads guilty to felony charge

California

Ethics Commission Delays Vote on Raising Contribution Limits

Colorado

Colorado Supreme Court Upholds ‘Magic Words’ Test for Political Spending by 527s

Colorado

Secretary of State Scott Gessler Rewrites Colorado Campaign Finance Rules

Florida

Miami Beach House Rep. Steinberg under Investigation by Feds for Bizarre Texts

Illinois

William Beavers Indicted on Tax Fraud Charges

Indiana

Lawmaker Takes Jab at Girl Scouts

Iowa

Denied Jobs, Blacks in Iowa Test New Bias Theory

Montana

High Court Halts Montana Corporate Spending Ban

New York

Critics Wary of State Elections Panel Plan to Oversee Super PAC Operations

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.

The Texas Ethics Commission announced there is no requirement to file the 30-day pre-election report due March 5th.

Normally, committees such as general and specific-purpose political committees that support or oppose a candidate or measure must file reports 30 days before an election in which the committee is involved, covering the first day after the period covered by the last report through 40 days before the election.

The Ethics Commission lifted the requirement because there is no ballot for the April 3rd election. The state’s primary election dates will likely be changed once redistricting in Texas has been finalized.

The Los Angeles City Ethics Commission has voted to shorten the length of time during which candidates for office may conduct fundraising.

If the commission’s ruling is approved by city council, candidates for city council will have 12 months instead of the current 18 months for fundraising, and citywide candidates will have 18 months instead of the current two year period for fundraising.

The commission additionally decided to delay the vote on whether or not the campaign contribution limit should be increased from $500 to $1,100 per donor.

Photo of the Los Angeles City Hall by Brion VIBBER on Wikipedia.

Secretary of State Scott Gessler announced on Wednesday the adoption of a recodified set of rules concerning Colorado campaign financing aimed at simplifying the state’s campaign finance process. Among the most notable changes to be made, total fines for late or incomplete campaign finance reports are now to be limited to $50 per day for up to 180 days for a maximum fine of $9,000.

Additionally, Gessler’s office will continue to utilize the $5,000 threshold at which issue committees must register and report, created by Gessler’s adoption of Campaign and Political Finance Rule 4.27, despite a state district court ruling Gessler did not have the authority to increase the threshold from the constitutionally-mandated figure of $200 after a finding by the court determining the threshold to be too burdensome.

Also, in accordance with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision released the day prior to Gessler’s release of the recodified campaign finance rules, a 527 political group is limited to accepting up to $550 from any person every two years if the 527 group is engaging in express advocacy for a particular candidate by use of certain “magic words” such as “vote for” or “elect.”

Critics of Gessler have claimed the changes made are outside his authority and a legal challenge is expected. The rules are scheduled to temporarily take effect on March 7, 2012, with the rules being permanently effective on March 30, 2012.

The State Ethics Commission has issued a memorandum concerning provisions of the ethics law relating to regulated lobbyists and campaign finance activities.

State law prohibits a lobbyist or a person acting on behalf of a lobbyist to engage in certain campaign activities including soliciting contributions or forwarding tickets to fundraising events.

The memorandum does not constitute an advisory opinion but addresses common issues and provides approaches for compliance with the technical provisions of the law.

The memorandum is available online here.

Alaska: “Governor signs campaign finance bill” by The Associated Press in USA Today.

“Financial disclosures show power of super PACs” by Fredreka Schouten in USA Today.

“Santorum ‘super’ PAC returned big foreign donation” by Stephen Braun in the Boston Globe.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding the state’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures, related to a candidate, by a corporation.

In December of last year, the Montana Supreme Court found Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, concluding the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions. The Montana Court emphasized the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling stays the state Court’s ruling until either a formal appeal to the US Supreme Court is denied, or, if an appeal is accepted, the US Supreme Court mandates the termination of the stay.

In the one page order by the US Supreme Court, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in [Citizens United v. FEC], make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.’ A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

Associate Justice Steven G. Breyer joined in Justice Ginsburg’s statement.

Photo of the United States Supreme Court building frieze by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.