In the New York Times, Nicholas Confessore examines the dilemma of reporting about presidential candidate filings and campaign finance figures minus the “super-PAC” dollars in the third quarter.

Here is the article on NYTimes.com: “Without ‘Super PAC’ Numbers, Campaign Filings Present an Incomplete Picture”

Yesterday, techPresident published “New Obama for America Page is a Jungle Gym for Donation Data” by Nick Judd.

Everyone has been talking about the new role social media is playing in the 2012 presidential campaigns. But I think Judd brings up an often missed point: The importance of social media’s role is not so much to be found in the social networks themselves, but in the vast amount of information the campaigns have about each of us, and how they are using that information on social media. Judd writes about campaigns “micro-targeting” potential political campaign donors with personalized messages geared toward attracting the most money.

The article showcases the Obama 2012 campaign website, which boasts its one million donors. The site allows you to drill down into a great deal of information about the contributions. The aim of the site is that the visitor will come to the conclusion that the donors are broad-based and grassroots.

Have any of our readers seen any similar examples on other campaign websites? Please share it on Lobby Comply!

A court in British Columbia has ruled the province cannot restrict election spending in the 60 days leading up to an official election call.

In British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), the British Columbia Court of Appeal panel upheld a lower court ruling finding portions of Election Act sections 235.1 and 228 are unconstitutional, and are of no force and effect insofar as they relate to the pre-campaign period as defined in the Act. Therefore, the court affirmed the British Columbia Attorney General cannot restrict election spending in the pre-campaign period 60 days before the election period begins.

Election advertising preceding a 28-day campaign period is considered a “pre-campaign” period. In the decision Justice Catherine Anne Ryan wrote, “[R]estricting third-party advertising during the pre-campaign period would unjustifiably interfere with third parties’ issue advocacy, lobbying activity, and other advertising endeavours unrelated to the election.”

Individuals with federal contracts should be allowed to make political contributions to federal candidates or political parties, a lawsuit filed yesterday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues.

The suit, Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges the constitutionality of section 441c of Title 2 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits any vendors with contracts with the federal government from making such contributions.

According to its press release, the ACLU is asking the Court, on behalf of the three named plaintiffs, to declare the law unconstitutional as applied to individuals who have personal services contracts with federal agencies. Because federal workers who are not contractors may make federal political contributions, while contractors performing the same work may not, the suit argues section 441c violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

Photo of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia courtesy of the Court’s website.

The San Jose City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday, October 18 to change the city’s campaign finance laws. Changes approved include the elimination of the city’s blackout periods which prohibit campaign contributions within 17 days of a regular election and within seven days of a special election.

Per the new law, the voluntary candidate campaign expenditure limits will increase from $1.00 per resident per election to $1.25. The rate for mayoral elections will remain the same at $0.75 per resident per election.

Further changes implemented by the new law eliminate an increase in the voluntary expenditure cap triggered by the fundraising efforts of other candidates and independent committees who do not choose to accept the limit.

Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate issued a restraining order against an independent political group running political ads against Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear on Monday, October 17. The order prohibits the attack ads paid for by the group Restoring America from running on television and radio stations.

In his order, Judge Wingate called the ads “an illegal attempt” to influence the outcome of Kentucky’s 2011 gubernatorial election due to a failure by Restoring America to properly report the source of contributions funding the ads as required under Kentucky law. Restoring America had reported a solitary contribution from Restoring America, Inc. of more than $1.3 million to run the ads, but the judge ruled the use of the additional entity was simply masking the identities of individual donors.

Judge Wingate’s order, thought to be the first such order to halt political advertising by a third party in the state, was quickly met with opposition by First Amendment rights activists who have argued it is no more than a state-level assault on the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case.

Restoring America did file an initial appeal on Tuesday, October 18, but that appeal was rejected due to a technical deficiency. Another appeal is expected.

A campaign finance law passed decades ago has recently come under fire in light of a possible gubernatorial recall. The law effectively allows public officials subject to a recall to collect unlimited contributions during the period when petitioners are collecting signatures to force a recall.

The law has recently been criticized because it would allow Governor Scott Walker to raise millions of dollars in unlimited contributions, but his eventual opponent would not have the same opportunity.

Democratic Rep. Kelda Helen Roys of Madison introduced Assembly Bill 296 last week to repeal the law and institute campaign contribution limits on a public official subject to a recall.

Federal:

Company Shops for Campaign Cash

Former Lobbyist Sent to Jail for a Few Hours for Taking Hill Aides to 2003 World Series Game

‘Scarlet L’ for K Street Returns as Obama Sharpens 2012 Rhetoric on Lobbyists

‘Super PAC’ American Crossroads Seeks Permission to Feature Candidates in Ads

The Outsized Returns from Lobbying

From the States and Municipalities:

California

California OKs Donations via Text

California

L.A. Ethics Commission Slaps Developer with Maximum Campaign Fine

California

Proposed California Regulations Spell Out Gift-Reporting Requirements for Elected Officials

Massachusetts

DiMasi Friend Admits Breaking Massachusetts Lobbying Law

New Mexico

GOP Files Lawsuit against Newly Imposed Campaign Contribution Limits in New Mexico

Tennessee

Tennessee Lawmaker Arrested on DUI, Gun Charges

Vermont

Judge: Republican Governors Association violated Vermont campaign finance laws

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.

At its October 13, 2011 hearing, the Fair Political Practices Commission voted 3-0 to adopt Regulation 18421.31 regarding text message contributions. Per the new regulation candidates and committees are permitted to raise funds through low-dollar text message contributions.

For the purposes of the regulation, contributions are deemed to be received on the date that a mobile fundraising vendor, acting as an agent of the candidate or committee, obtains possession and control of the funds. Once received by the mobile fundraising vendor, contributions must be promptly reported to the candidate or committee’s treasurer or a designated agent thereof no later than the closing date of any campaign statement the candidate or committee is required to file.

For text message contributions of less than $25, candidates and committees will be required to maintain the dates and daily totals of contributions. For contributions exceeding $25 but less than $100, the regulation requires that candidates and committees record the full name and street address of the contributor, the cumulative amount received from each contribution, and any information regarding an intermediary where applicable.

When a contribution exceeding $100 is received, the regulation requires that the candidate or committee maintain a record of the contributor’s name and address, occupation, employer, the cumulative amount received from the contributor, and any information regarding an intermediary where applicable.

Under the regulation, a contribution made by text message will be attributed to the person who is subscribed to the cell phone number from which the contribution is received.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is soliciting comments for possible regulations concerning exceptions to its rules regarding disclaimers on internet communications, hoping to glean insights to keep pace with the rapidly evolving technological advances available to practitioners of campaign finance.

In its draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FEC invites comments addressing the ways that campaigns, political committees, and others use or may soon use the internet, mobile devices, and other technologies to disseminate and receive campaign and other electoral information. The Commission is also interested in possible modifications and technological alternatives to the current disclaimer requirements, and data or experiences “in purchasing, selling, or distributing small or character-limited advertisements online.”

The FEC anticipates any final rules would not become effective until after the 2011-2012 election cycle.

The New Mexico Republican Party, represented by attorney James Bopp, Jr., has filed a lawsuit challenging New Mexico’s campaign finance law. The suit asks the federal district court in Albuquerque to declare unconstitutional part of a state law which sets a contribution limit of $5,000 to or by political parties. The law was passed in 2009, but did not become effective until after the 2010 election.

The lawsuit also contends that federal election law precludes New Mexico from restricting how much money a national political party can give to a state party organization for election work, such as registering voters and encouraging voter turnout.

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.