A federal lawsuit concerning a Mississippi campaign finance law requiring registration and reporting upon spending at least $200 to support or oppose ballot initiatives was heard last week in U.S. District Court.

The case stems from the desire of five Lafayette County, Mississippi residents who would like to spend $1,000 to publicly support their views in favor of Mississippi Initiative 31, which limits the government’s use of eminent domain to take private land. The residents argued their First Amendment freedom of speech and association rights have been violated as a result of the campaign finance provisions and seek to have the law declared unconstitutional and unenforceable.

The case was heard by U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock, but she did not immediately issue a ruling.

This week the Missouri Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether lawmakers acted illegally in a legislative attempt to increase ethics requirements. The case appeals a ruling by Circuit Judge Daniel Green finding Senate Bill 844 to be a violation of the constitution’s single subject requirement.

What began as a one-page bill allowing officials to use the Office of Administration for procurement decisions became a 69-page bill entitled “relating to ethics.” The bill changed campaign finance laws, gave greater authority to the Missouri Ethics Commission, created new crimes for ethics violations, and required Capitol dome keys be given to all lawmakers.

Judge Green’s ruling struck down all but the original procurement provision. The Attorney General believes the bill can be saved by striking only the provision regarding Capitol dome keys. Those challenging the bill argue the entire bill is unconstitutional.

Photo of the Missouri Supreme Court building by Americasroof on Wikipedia.

The Fair Political Practices Commission has issued notice of proposed amendments to the California Code of Regulations to be considered at a public hearing on December 8, 2011. The proposed regulations codify commission guidance instructing filers to treat an in-kind contribution of the services of salaried personnel to a committee and the expenditure by the person making the salary payment as a contribution made on the payroll date of the salaried personnel.

The commission will also consider regulations which differentiate a contribution from a donation. Under the proposed regulation, a contribution is a payment made for a political purpose and includes payments to a multi-purpose organization. By contrast, a payment to a multi-purpose organization that is not made or used for a political purpose is to be treated as a donation and not a contribution for the purposes of identifying reportable contributions.

Lastly, the commission will consider amendments to the provisions pertaining to primarily formed and general purpose committees to assist filers in determining which label fits the purpose and structure of their committee.

The regulations define a general purpose committee as an ongoing committee which supports multiple candidates and measures in successive elections. General purpose committees include associations, political action committees, political party committees, major donors, as well as entities and individuals making independent expenditures.

The regulation proposes a standard for determining whether a committee is a state, county, or city general purpose committee. A committee will be considered a city or county committee if more than 70 percent of their activity is at the city or county level. Classification as a state committee will be the default.

Pursuant to the proposed regulation, a primarily formed committee is a committee formed or existing to support a single candidate or measure in a specific election. A committee will be considered primarily formed if more than 70 percent of the committee’s contributions and expenditures are for specific candidates or measures during the 24 months preceding the date where the candidate or measure is on the ballot.

Image of the Seal of California by Zscout370 on Wikipedia.

National:

Largest U.S. Companies Increasingly Disclose Political Spending

Report Cites Growing Role of Interest Groups in State Judicial Elections

Federal:

Abramoff Divulges K Street Secrets

Cain Blames Perry as New Sexual Harassment Allegations Surface

FCC To Rule on On-line Political Advertisement Disclosure

Justice Amps Up Enforcement of Law on Foreign Advocacy

Lawmakers Demand FEC Documents, Threaten Subpoena

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama

New Alabama Ethics Law Sweeps in Culture Shift for Capital Lobbyists

California

Passion, Politics Link Lobbyist Couples

California

State Lobby Spending on Pace to Set Records

Illinois

Illinois Powerbroker Convicted in Shakedown Trial

Maryland

County Ethics Bill Would Restrict Lobbying, Add Enforcement

Minnesota

Campaign Finance Board Temporarily Upholds Disclosure Requirements

Nebraska

Report: Nebraska OK at tracking lobbyists, could do better

New Hampshire

N.H. Official Sets Primary for Jan.10

Ohio

Amid Corruption Scandal, Local Races Framed by Honesty and Character Issues

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.

Tim Uppal, Canada’s Minister of State for Democratic Reform has proposed a law which would limit loans available to candidates and political parties.

Under the proposed legislation, loans, loan guarantees, and contributions from individuals would be prohibited from exceeding $1,100 in the aggregate per calendar year. Presently, loans are not treated as part of the annual aggregate limit.

The proposal would also ban loans by unions as well as corporations when the loans are not made in the regular course of business by a financial institution.

A Federal constitutional amendment allowing Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance is being introduced by U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennett.

The amendment, a response to last year’s Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v FEC, grants Congress and the states the power to “regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents” in their laws for their respective elections.

The bill allows the government to set limits on both the amount of direct political contributions to candidates and the amount of independent expenditures that may be made in support of or in opposition to those candidates.

According to his press release, Senator Udall states, “With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.”

The full text of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on:

(1) The amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) The amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on:

(1) The amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

(2) The amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A different constitutional amendment addressing the Citizen’s United decision was introduced in September by Congressman John Conyers. Information about that amendment may be found in a prior LobbyComply post here.

The Texas Ethics Commission has adopted amendments to its rules regarding reporting requirements under the campaign finance law.

The changes in administrative rules §§20.50, 20.62, 20.219, 20.279, 20.331, and 20.433 bring them in line with Senate Bill 1, passed earlier this year.

While the bill became effective September 28, the Ethics Commission’s adopted rules became effective today.

Anonymous and unsolicited text messages are being sent against democratic candidates in Virginia. Here is the Washington Post article “Anti-Democratic text messages in Northern Va. prompt lawsuit, complaints” by Anita Kumar.

Government Technology discusses the tension between the demands of government transparency and the realities of state bugdet constraints in “Transparency Demands Cost Governments Money” by Sarah Rich.

NCSL has updated their 2012 Legislative Session Calendar.

Judicial races are getting expensive. PoliticsPA.com posted “Pa. Rated as Second Costliest Judicial Elections; Candidates Weigh in” by Sari Heidenreich. Here is the recent study by the Brennan Center For Justice, “The New Politics of Judicial Elections: 2009-10” that ranks judicial elections in the states.

Photo of texting by Alton on Wikipedia.

The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has approved ordinance number 913 which makes electronic campaign finance disclosure mandatory for candidates, candidate controlled committees, and independent committees which receive contributions or make expenditures of $5,000 or more.

Once the electronic reporting threshold has been met, all subsequent reports must be filed electronically.

The ordinance will take effect on November 28, 2011.

Federal:

Ex-Abramoff Associate Ring Sentenced to 20 Months in One of Scandal’s Harshest Punishments

Influence Industry Officially in a Funk

Lobbyist Stint Led to Cain’s Political Forays

Lobbyists Claim Victory against Tax Rule

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama

Ex-Alabama Rep. Terry Spicer Enters Agreement to Plead Guilty to Bribery

Alaska

Guilty Pleas Mark End of Alaska Corruption Investigation

Arizona

Judge Rejects Arizona Campaign Finance Measure

Illinois

Ex-Teachers Union Boss Gets $242,000 State Pension

Kentucky

David Williams’ In-Law is Restoring America Group’s Sole Donor

Montana

Montana Political Practices Office to Address Social Media Campaign Complaints

Nevada

Short-Staffed Ethics Commission Wading Through Flood of Cases

New York

Operative Convicted of Stealing from NYC Mayor

Ohio

Anti-Issue 2 Group Raises More Than Twice as Much Money as Supporters of New Collective Bargaining Law

Washington

With $22 Million Bet, Costco Shakes Up Washington Election

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Capitol to Allow Guns
 
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.

• NCSL has updated their 50 state chart of state ethics commission information, with its interactive map, list of contact information, and detailed profiles.

• Politico published “Political advertising data may go online” by Brooks Boliek. According to the article, “The Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote Thursday on a notice of proposed rule making that could require broadcasters to post information about political ads and other data on the Internet.”

• Arizona’s clean elections program made the news yet again. “The Arizona Legislature may have to go back to the drawing board if it wants voters in 2012 to kill the state’s public-funded Clean Elections campaign-finance program,” reports the Arizona Republic in “Judge rejects Arizona campaign finance measure” by Alia Beard Rau.

• Read what the feds are tweeting right this moment on “The Feed” by Nextgov.

• Politico offers today “Ex-FEC chief: Lift money limits” by Dave Levinthal, where he begins by quoting former Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner: “The United States should take a cue from the Commonwealth of Virginia — or the Cayman Islands, for that matter — and simply do away with limits on campaign contributions.”

• Remember “We the People,” the White House’s new online channel to offer your own petitions for better government? TechPresident gives us an update on whether the platform is living up to its promise to be a true place of genuine communication with the White House. Here is the blog post: “White House Begins Responses to ‘We the People‘” by Nick Judd.

Political contribution limit changes proposed this summer by the Montana Office of the Commissioner of Political Practices take effect today.

The adjustments affect the amount of contributions individuals, political parties, and political committees may make to candidates for the office of governor and other statewide positions.

Additionally, as also proposed this summer by the Commissioner’s office, electronic filing of reports is scheduled to begin in January.

The San Francisco Ethics Commission has approved amendments to the campaign finance reform ordinance. The language of the amendments is forthcoming and will be approved by the commission at the November 14, 2011 meeting.

Amendments that were proposed and approved at the October 19, 2011 commission meeting include disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements for communications that are paid for by third parties concerning candidates for city elective office, an affirmation of the $500 per person contribution limit to candidates, and permission for campaign funds to be used by a candidate to attend a fundraiser for a charitable organization. The commission also approved a provision which will allow the commission to modify the $500 limit to reflect the consumer price index for future elections.

The commission further clarified that a candidate may transfer funds from the candidate’s committee only before the funds become surplus.

A federal lawsuit has been filed claiming a burden upon First Amendment free speech rights due to a state of Mississippi requirement that people or groups must file a campaign finance report upon spending at least $200 to support or oppose ballot initiatives.

The group of five citizens filing the suit claims the reporting requirement could scare people away from political participation. The group supports Mississippi Initiative 31, which limits the government’s use of eminent domain to take private land.

The citizens are represented by the Institute for Justice, a group that has also filed similar lawsuits concerning disclosure requirements in Colorado and Florida in recent years.