U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank denied a temporary injunction in a lawsuit brought by supporters of Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, upholding a new Minnesota law that revealed political donations from several corporations.  The law was enacted in May after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United earlier this year freed businesses to spend corporate money on elections, overturning restrictions on corporate political spending in about half the states, including Minnesota.

Minnesota lawmakers responded by enacting disclosure requirements so that corporate campaign spending would be public.  In his decision, Judge Frank explained the public has an interest in knowing who speaks and who pays for campaign messages and advertisements as elections approach.

Photo of Tom Emmer from the Minnesota House of Representatives Web site.

Under the consent decree signed by Judge George C. Smith, corporations may engage in express advocacy for or against a candidate for Ohio office. Corporations are still prohibited from making direct contributions to a candidate or working with a candidate on these independent expenditures. This order brings Ohio elections into compliance with the January “Citizens United” decision which held corporations have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures.

The decision may have a major impact on Ohio’s campaign finance regulation because the statute in question contains a clause which states if any section of the law is deemed unconstitutional, the entire law is automatically repealed. A federal court will determine the validity of the remainder of the law next week.

The Oklahoma Ethics Commission has announced it will not enforce a law banning PAC-to-PAC transfers of funds in an instance where one PAC supports or opposes a ballot issue.

The commission recognizes the rule, as written, is unconstitutional because of the U.S. Supreme Court case “First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti”. The ethics commission will likely rewrite the rule in 2011.

A U.S. District Court has invalidated a South Carolina statute defining committees, including those commonly known as PACs. In South Carolina Citizens for Life, Inc. v Krawcheck, the Court found the South Carolina Ethics Act placed significant burdens on groups qualifying as committees without giving meaningful consideration of a group’s major purpose, threatening to chill their First Amendment rights. Specifically, the definition of committee in S.C.C. §8-13-1300(6) could encompass any group, without reference to the entity’s major purpose, and was unconstitutionally overbroad.

Photo of the South Carolina statehouse by Nikopoley on Wikipedia.

Cook County Commissioners have approved a series of ethics reforms focused on certain political contributions. Among the reforms is a provision requiring candidates for County Assessor to return contributions exceeding $1,500 from lawyers who appear before their office seeking reduced property values.

Additionally, fines for breaking county ethics rules have been increased tenfold; violators now face a maximum fine of $5,000. The board intends to clarify the county’s conflict-of-interest code after the upcoming election.

You can visit the Web site for the Cook County Commissioners.

Assembly Majority Leader John Oceguera said he will pursue a number of transparency measures in the 2011 legislative session. Among those to be introduced would be a requirement for all candidates for public office to report every financial contribution online within 72 hours of receipt, including the amount received and the donor.

Another measure would introduce a “cooling off” period before public officials could work as lobbyists. Specifically, an elected official or regulator would be prohibited from lobbying the governmental body where the individual served, or any agency they regulated or oversaw, for a period of two years.

NEW YORK: A recent examination by New York City’s Campaign Finance Board shows that changes enacted before the 2009 mayoral election encouraged 34,000 New Yorkers to make campaign donations for the first time; drastically curtailed the role of businesses, political committees and lobbyists in campaigns; and caused a major drop in donations from those doing business with the city.

The Campaign Finance Board report found that New York City’s newly promulgated rules diminished the role of businesses, political committees and unions in campaign fund-raising. They now account for 7.2 percent of all funds available to candidates. In the last election for State Assembly and Senate candidates, such contributions accounted for 66.6 percent of all the money raised. New York City’s system has become a model for campaign finance reform based upon these results.

Photo of the New York City Hall by Momos on Wikipedia.

Key to the suit is the state’s prohibition on contributions by contractors until completion of the contract. The suit, filed by A-1 A-Lectrician Inc., an electrical and construction firm in Hawaii, alleges the prohibition is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, as well as in violation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship protection of corporations and individuals.

Citizen advocacy groups, including Common Cause Hawaii and the League of Women Voters of Hawaii, have already voiced their opposition to the suit.

Satellite photo of Hawaii by NASA, posted on Wikipedia.

The new law requires groups like The Iowa Right-to-Life Committee, which is organized as a corporation, to form a PAC if they wish to make independent expenditures. The group claims this requirement and the new disclosure requirements are an unconstitutional burden on their First Amendment rights.

Supporters of the law are calling this suit a “political stunt.”

Photo of the Iowa Capitol by Cburnett on Wikipedia.

In its opinion, the court decided the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance’s interest in keeping politics out of school elections is not sufficient grounds for limiting contributions in that manner.

Because of this ruling, individuals may contribute up to $1,000 for a candidate for school board, the same limit imposed on other candidates for office in Kentucky.

The plaintiffs, who wanted to make campaign contributions to the reelection campaign of Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, allege the provisions of Ohio Revised Code section 3599.45 violates their First Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs are seeking an order from the U.S. District Court declaring the law unconstitutional as well as an order enjoining the Ohio Secretary of State from enforcing it.

The proposal would end the “fair and open contract” exception for businesses which make reportable campaign contributions at the legislative, county, and municipal levels, yet are able to receive contract awards valued greater than $17,500 with local governments – a practice not permitted at the state or gubernatorial level. The new legislation would also restrict the practice of “wheeling” by imposing contribution limitations on county and municipal committees which transfer money between committees and transfer committee contributions to out-of-county or out-of-municipality candidates.

The Chamber filed for, and was granted, a preliminary injunction against Land’s initial interpretation of Michigan’s campaign finance laws in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision. Land ruled the Chamber may make independent expenditures but could not set up a PAC to make them. Under the stipulated ruling, corporations, organization, and unions are still prohibited from making direct corporate contributions or using a PAC to do so.

Register to view our Citizens United Update and read how other states are reacting to the Citizens United decision, here.

The Commission determined the language in section 21-5-33(b)(1)(B) of the Georgia Ethics in Government Act which states a candidate is free to transfer excess contributions “without limitation to any national, state, or local committee of any political party or to any candidate” is not referencing an absence of limitation on such contributions, but is instead referencing the types of organizations to which such excess contributions may be contributed.

For further reading:

“Advisory Opinion – S.E.C. 2010-06,” by the Georgia State Ethics Commission.

This post is a follow-up to my previous article on Georgia campaign finance from August 30, 2010 – “Georgia Ethics Commission Advisory Opinion Coming,”  by Joe May.