Be sure to read “Campaign-finance regulations go before high court” by Peter Wong in the Statesman Journal.

According to the article: “Justices of the Oregon Supreme Court are pondering whether the state should enforce campaign-finance regulations that Oregon voters approved in 2006 despite their rejection of a companion constitutional change in the same election. … Measure 47 would have limited individual contributions — to $500 in statewide contests and $100 in all others — and barred corporate and union contributions. It also would have set limits on contributions to all types of political committees.”

Photo of the Oregon Supreme Court courtroom doors by Aboutmovies on Wikipedia.

Federal campaign contributions are prohibited from individuals living in the U.S. but not admitted for permanent residency, the Supreme Court affirmed today.

The Supreme Court, through a summary disposition, upheld a lower court ruling finding aliens who are in the United States on temporary work visas may not make political contributions to federal candidates or political parties, as proscribed in 2 U.S.C. §441e and its implementing regulations.

Bluman v FEC was brought on behalf of two plaintiffs, a doctor in residency and a recent law school graduate, both citizens of other countries. They argued the Court’s earlier Citizens United v FEC decision mandated allowing financial political contributions by the plaintiffs as part of their protected free speech.

In upholding the law and denying the plaintiff the relief they sought, the lower court had written in its decision, “It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.”

Today’s one-line summary disposition by the Supreme Court affirms the lower court’s holding without judicial opinion.

Photo of the U.S. Supreme Court Building by Joe Ravi on Wikipedia.

“Ethics watchdog alleges that Gingrich might have violated lobbying laws” by Rachel Leven in The Hill.

“Super PACs: The WMDs of Campaign Finance” by Ben Heineman, Jr. in The Atlantic.

“Rick Santorum, ‘Stealth Lobbyist’” by Matthew Mosk and Brian Ross on ABCNews.com.

“More women seeking, achieving greater political clout in Wisconsin” by Michael Louis Vinson in the Appleton Post-Crescent.

“SCOTUS expected to weigh Montana campaign finance appeal” by Robin Bravender in Politico.

“State GOP accused of campaign finance violations” by Brad Schrade in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The Joint Standing Committee on Veterans and Legal Affairs of the Maine State Legislature has killed LD 120, a bill aiming to stop gubernatorial candidates from participating in the state’s clean elections program.

“An Act to End Taxpayer-funded Campaigns for Gubernatorial Candidates” was held over from last session, but the Joint Committee voted for a recommendation of “ought not to pass” with little debate.

For the full story read “Committee kills bill that would weaken clean election law” by Eric Russell in the Bangor Daily News.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange has appealed the judge’s ruling in Alabama Democratic Conference v. Strange, the case overturning a portion of the state ban on the transfer of funds from one PAC to another.

While the appeal is pending, the attorney general is prohibited from enforcing the PAC-to-PAC transfer law against the Alabama Democratic Conference.

In response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, there are states and cities taking action to deny personhood to corporations. The Montana Supreme Court upheld a ban on corporate spending in local elections and a measure was introduced in the Vermont Legislature calling for a constitutional amendment distinguishing the rights of individuals from those of corporations.

The city councils of Los Angeles, Oakland, Albany, Boulder, and New York City are listed in the article as having passed resolutions – some calling for a constitutional amendment –  eliminating corporate personhood, which could affect SuperPAC spending in their jurisdictions.

For the full story, read “Cities, states pass resolutions against corporate personhood” by Bailey McCann on CivSourceonline.com.

The following announcement  is from the Alaska Public Offices Commission website:

The Alaska Public Offices Commission will be conducting a brief training designed to provide basic information about group campaign disclosure and to introduce filers to the new electronic filing system.

The training is scheduled for Friday, January 6, 2012 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Filers may participate in person at the Anchorage office, remotely by computer, or by telephone.

Email or call Attorney Vullnet Greva at vullnet.greva@alaska.gov or (907) 276-4176 for details regarding participation.

Title 15 requires government officials and employees to disclose their financial affairs and sets minimum ethical standards for the conduct of state and local business. The law also requires all counties, municipalities, and school boards adopt ethics standards at least equal to the state’s ethics law with regard to conflicts of interest, financial disclosure, and lobbying. Each local ethics commission is required to certify its compliance with the Maryland Ethics Commission on or before October 1st of each year, beginning in 2011.

Some local officials are still working toward agreement and passage of the required bills. Although officials may follow the state’s guidelines, many are choosing their own paths. For instance, the registration thresholds for lobbyists in Title 15 include an expenditure clause and a gift clause: $500 in expenditures towards influencing legislative or executive action; or $100 in gifts for the purpose of influencing executive action. The recently passed Charles County bill has a $100 gift threshold, while Alleghany County’s gift threshold is $200. Neither bill includes an expenditure clause. However, in Howard County, there is a $100 expenditure threshold for any lobbying activity, but no gift threshold.

Conflict of interest rules have also been the subject of debate. Title 15 forbids former public officials (other than legislators) and employees from assisting or representing a party in a contract or other specific matter for compensation if the former official or employee participated significantly in the matter as an official or employee. Frederick County attempted to limit this prohibition to one year for former commissioners with an exemption for former employees. This modification was rejected by the state. The Frederick County delegation now plans to propose changes to Title 15 before the general assembly to allow the one year limitations.

Counties such as Baltimore and Montgomery continue to debate and, as of December 1, 2011, had yet to approve a final version of the required ethics bill.

In the latest development, the State Ethics Commission met to respond to exemption requests. According to the Maryland Municipal League web site:

“The Maryland State Ethics Commission met on December 8 to consider a number of exemption requests from various municipalities around the state. Several jurisdictions were requesting an extension of an existing exemption, while some cities and towns were requesting new exemptions from the recently enacted financial disclosure reporting requirement. The results were varied, although it seemed as though population and budget size were the criteria most often cited by the members of the Ethics Commission when exemptions were being considered. For more information, please contact Tom Reynolds or Candace Donoho on the MML staff.”

Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller has announced that the enhanced online system for campaign finance filings is now up and running.

All parties filing contributions and expense reports as well as financial disclosure statements are now required to report electronically as was mandated by Assembly Bill 452.

The Montana Supreme Court has held the state law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate is constitutional.

Finding Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, the majority opinion of the Montana Supreme Court in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana states, “The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The Court concludes the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions, emphasizing the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

In making its argument, the decision asserts that a “material factual distinction between the present case and Citizens United is the extent of the regulatory burden imposed by the challenged law.” The Court found in contrast to the “complexity and ambiguity” of restrictions for federal PACs, PACs formed and maintained in the state are “easily implemented” by the filing of “simple and straight-forward forms or reports.”

Federal:

Fundraisers Take a Gamble on Lotteries

Romney Charity Used for Conservative Donations

Ron Paul’s House Record Marked by Bold Strokes, and Futility

From the States and Municipalities:

California

Business Interests Were Top Bill-Killers in California’s Capitol This Year

California

State Senator Aims to Double Lobby Fee in California – to 14 Cents a Day

Colorado

Gessler Issues 2012 Campaign Finance Rules

Florida

Palm Beach County Approves Countywide Lobbyist Registry

Ohio

Jimmy Dimora Faces Trial as Convictions in Federal Court Soar

South Carolina

Colbert Offering $500,000 to Pay for S.C. GOP Primary

Tennessee

Tennessee Lawmakers Still Haven’t Filled Ethics Commission Seat That Expired in ’09

Washington

Court Invalidates Washington State Cap on PAC Donations

West Virginia

Ethics Agency’s Informal Advice Kept Secret
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has invalidated a Washington state law that prevented individuals from making contributions of more than $5,000 to PACs supporting ballot measures during the three weeks prior to an election.

The blackout period on contributions was challenged in a lawsuit filed by Family PAC, a political action committee that was formed to oppose Washington’s domestic partnership law.

While Family PAC was successful on the merits in challenging the blackout period, it was unsuccessful in its challenge to laws requiring PACs to report the name and address of anyone who contributes more than $25, and the occupation and employer of those who make contributions in excess of $100.

You can find Politico’s coverage in “Super PACs go stealth through first contests” by Dave Levinthal and Kenneth P. Vogel.

According to the article, some in the Federal Election Commission are calling for a change of the rules to allow for greater disclosure:

The disclosure rules may need to be updated to reflect the rise of super PACs as driving forces in presidential politics, two Democratic FEC commissioners suggested in interviews with POLITICO. “Super PACs are functioning as the alter egos of the campaigns, and their activity was clearly not anticipated when the statutes were put in place,” said Ellen Weintraub, a Democratic FEC appointee. The commission, she said, “should reconsider the regulations about caucuses and disclosure or at least take a hard look at them.”

Spending in Michigan’s upcoming Congressional and state Supreme Court elections could be near $100 million in 2012.

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United case in 2010 which made it possible for special interest groups to spend unlimited funds supporting thier candidates of choice has caused an explosion of campaign related spending that is becoming more apparent while more and more campaigns are underway.

Now that those who have large amounts of money can freely support campaigns with any amount of money, money from special interests is expected to make up a large proportion of the overall total campaign spending in the upcoming elections.

Read this article by Angela Wittrock to learn more.