The Hartford city council is debating a proposal to ban campaign contributions from contractors who have business deals with the city. Proposed more than two years ago, the measure is now moving forward after receiving word from the city’s corporation counsel assuring the legality of such a measure.

There are still details to be determined concerning the measure, including who will be expected to enforce the measure. A vote is expected by the end of March.

Aerial photo of downtown Hartford by Sage Ross on Wikipedia.

Voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the city charter placing serious restrictions on the ability of those doing business or seeking to do business with the city to make campaign contributions.

The pay-to-play rule, which passed with a vote of 75 percent in favor, will prohibit anyone bidding on a contract with Los Angeles worth $100,000 or more from donating to or fundraising for city officials with the authority to approve the contract on which he or she is bidding.

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

A bill prohibiting unions from making paycheck deductions for political activities has passed the Kansas house and is now in the state senate. The bill would also ban public employee unions from endorsing candidates.

Opponents of the bill claim the legislation is an attack on the ability of workers to organize and participate as a group in the political process, while those in favor of it say this is simply an effort to help workers who do not support their union’s political activity.

A similar law passed in Alabama during a December special session outlawed payroll deduction contributions to PACs by public employees. That law, passed by Republicans, was harshly criticized as “partisan politics” because the PACs traditionally supported by public employee payroll deductions leaned overwhelmingly Democrat.

Photo of the Kansas State Capitol by Nikopoley on Wikipedia.

Secretary of State Ken Bennett has released contribution limits for the 2011-2012 election cycle.  Under the new limits individuals and noncertified political committees cannot contribute more than $872 to a statewide candidate, $430 to a non-statewide local candidate, and $424 to a non-statewide legislative candidate.

Certified committees or “Super PACs” are now limited to contributions of $4,352 to a statewide candidate, $2,170 to a non-statewide local candidate, and $1,736 to a non-statewide legislative candidate.   Individuals are now limited to contributions totaling $6,100 in a calendar year to political committees or candidates.

The Secretary of State biennially adjusts campaign contribution limits based upon the consumer price index.

Republican Senator Jake Knotts and Democratic Senator Vincent Sheheen have announced they are submitting a bill banning leadership PACs in the Senate. Leadership PACs normally may accept contributions from lobbyists and have different contribution amounts than other campaign accounts.

Senator Sheheen said, “I want to help restore voter’s trust in government. This bill is one step to make sure elected officials answer to the voters, not wealthy contributors.”

Currently there is no member of the Senate who has a Leadership PAC.

While attending the 35^th Annual Public Affairs Council PAC Conference in Miami last week, there were many questions about the impact of Citizens United in the states.

Last year, State and Federal Communications prepared a report, and we continue to update it, for our clients to understand how it has been applied.

Follow this link for the report. If you have any further questions, don’t hesitate to send an email to our Research Manager John Cozine.

Representative Keith Grover has introduced a bill allowing for some campaign contributions to be made during legislative sessions. HB 395 allows for accepting a campaign contribution when the Legislature is in session for an official who is a candidate for federal elective office. The contribution must be placed in a separate account specifically designated for the candidate’s campaign account for federal office.

Currently, no contributions may be made when the Legislature is convened in an annual general session, veto override session, or a special session convened before July 1st of a general election year.

Photo of Rep. Keith Grover courtesy of the Utah House of Representatives website.

Robert W. Hayes, Jr., Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee has introduced a bill to redefine the definitions of committees involved in political campaigns and to add a definition of ‘independent expenditure committee.’ Senate Bill 0593 is a response to South Carolina Citizens for Life, Inc. v Krawcheck, a federal court decision finding the state’s definition of committee unconstitutional.

Based on the court decision, the State Ethics Commission announced in October of 2010 it would not enforce provisions of the state law concerning making independent expenditures. Among the refined definitional changes in the bill is wording specifically detailing the major purpose of the committees, usually for the support or opposition of a ballot issue or election of a candidate. In the bill, an ‘independent expenditure committee’ is defined as an association, a club, an organization, a group of persons or a person whose major purpose is to support or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate to elective office and makes independent expenditures in excess of $5,000 during an election cycle.

This post is an update to two previous Lobby Comply articles by George Ticoras:

“Ethics Commission Not Appealing Decision Striking Down Definition of Committee” from October 19

“South Carolina Defines Committee Too Broadly” from September 20

The new limits, which will be in effect through February 24, 2013, feature very modest increases in each category. For instance, an individual may now donate $11,543.70 to a PAC, a statewide candidate, or state-level legislative candidate; the previous amount was $11,395.56. Maximum individual contributions to statewide parties increased from $34,186.68 to $34,631.11.

Contribution limits for judicial candidates will remain at current levels.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Human Life of Washington challenging Washington’s campaign finance disclosure law.  The Supreme Court let stand without comment a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the state’s disclosure requirements for political committees, independent expenditures and political advertising.

Human Life of Washington challenged the requirements as a violation of its free-speech rights, as it sought to keep donors in a 2008 campaign opposing an assisted-suicide ballot measure confidential.   The group argued that it was not required to register as a political-action committee and disclose donors because its advertisements did not specifically reference the ballot measure.

Photo of the U.S. Supreme Court by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby has held that Maine’s campaign finance reporting law is constitutional.  The law requiring groups that raise more than $5,000 to influence elections to register with the state and disclose donors who make contributions of $100 or more was challenged by the National Organization for Marriage on the basis that the law was vague and overly broad.

The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices investigated the organizations activity, alleging that they had violated Maine campaign finance law by raising and spending more than $5,000 to help overturn the Maine law allowing same-sex marriage but not following the reporting requirements. A lawsuit continues in state court that challenges the state’s ability to investigate violations of the campaign finance law.

Currently, corporations are prohibited from any campaign activity other than those contributions allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its “Citizens United” decision.

Corporations would still be forbidden from contributing to a candidate committee or political party committee.

South Dakota seal from an image of the state flag by Denelson83 on Wikipedia.

The House Ethics Committee voted 5-3 against HB 0164, a bill imposing campaign contributions limits. Representative Rebecca Chaves-Houch had formerly introduced the legislation only four days earlier.

Utah presently has no limits to the amounts one can contribute to candidates for state offices. The bill caps contributions to $5,000 for legislative candidates, $10,000 for gubernatorial candidates, and $10,000 to state PACs.

Representative Chaves-Houch intends on reintroducing some version of the bill, possibly next year.

This post follows up a previous article by George Ticoras called “Putting Limits on Utah Contributions” from February 8, 2011.

Photo by Scott Catron on Wikipedia.

Q. As a registered lobbyist, am I allowed to make a personal political contribution to a general assembly member whom I might eventually lobby? Does it make a difference whether I am a constituent of the general assembly member? Is such a contribution reportable?

A. As is customary in the nature of government affairs work, the answer depends upon the state in which you are making the contribution. That means you need to check the rules and regulations on political contributions for each state before you make the contribution. Also, whether such contributions are permitted or reported depends upon the amount of the contribution.

Here are some relevant examples:

• Personal political contributions by a lobbyist are reportable in Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. In some instances, the reporting requirement extends to a member of the lobbyist’s immediate family also making a contribution.
• In Pennsylvania, a registered lobbyist making a personal political contribution must register and report in the same manner required of PACs.
• There is an absolute prohibition on personal political contributions by registered lobbyists in Connecticut and North Carolina.
• In South Carolina, lobbyists are prohibited from making contributions to a candidate or anyone acting on behalf of a candidate if the lobbyist engages in lobbying the public office or public body for which the candidate is seeking election.
• In California, lobbyists may not contribute to state candidates or officeholders, or their controlled committees, if registered to lobby the candidate or officeholder’s agency.
• In Alaska, a lobbyist may not make a contribution to a candidate for office in a district outside the lobbyist’s own voting district. This prohibition continues for one year after a lobbyist’s registration or renewed registration date. A lobbyist who contributes to a legislative candidate must file a report within 30 days after making the contribution.

Political contributions not otherwise prohibited by a registered lobbyist could nonetheless be prohibited based on the particular state’s pay-to-play laws. Also, always make sure there are no restrictions on making the contribution during the legislative session.

Finally, it bears repeating to check the laws in the particular state before you make the contribution.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: marketing@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.