California’s Fair Political Practices Commission just released a report by the Subcommittee on Internet Political Activity saying political ads used on Web sites and social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter should be regulated the same way ads are on any other medium.

Here are two articles for further reading :

“Social media wrap: California watchdog recommends Internet political campaign regulations,” by Craig Howie in the Los Angeles Times on August 2, 2010.

“State panel calls for online political ad rules,” by Marisa Lagos in the San Francisco Chronicle on August 3, 2010.

Wisconsin Club for Growth and One Wisconsin Now filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. The groups say the new law infringes upon their right to free speech. The rule they oppose requires any group putting out a political issue ad to disclose the source of their money and how they spent it – whether or not the words in the ad direct a person to vote for or against a candidate.

The groups also raise the concern that the new law would bring greater internet regulation.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel offers this article on the challenge:

“Political opposites protest ad rules,” by Jason Stein, August 1, 2010.

Photograph taken by Dori

Governor M. Jodi Rell vetoed Senate Bill 551, a bill passed in response to the recent U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield regarding the state’s Citizens’ Election Program, due to concerns over the state budget. Governor Rell had previously indicated to legislators her intent to veto any bill which increased grants to candidates participating in the program, but legislators chose to increase from $3,000,000 to $6,000,000 the grant to candidates participating in the general election for governor.

Rell criticized the decision, stating legislators “have taken a program that was intended to remove the taint of special interests and corruption from political campaigns and turned it into a welfare program for politicians.” Legislators are now considering a veto override to save the bill.

For more of the story, here is an article in the Boston Globe:

“Conn. governor vetoes bill to fix campaign law,” by Susan Haigh.

Rhode Island General Treasurer Frank Caprio, who is running as a candidate for governor this fall, plans to argue the current system is equitable and has not placed the Moderate Party in a weaker financial position than the Republicans or Democrats.

U.S. District Judge William Smith will hear arguments in the suit this coming Thursday.

For further reading, here is an article by the Associated Press in the Boston Globe: “Caprio: RI campaign finance system is fair”

You will find many resources at the State of Rhode Island Board of Elections Campaign Finance Web site.

Maine’s Clean Election Act is in question after a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding Arizona’s clean elections program and a federal court decision in Connecticut:

“ME: Maine watching Arizona elections case,” by Kevin Miller from the Bangor Daily News.

Former Florida House Speaker Ray Sansom gets no plea deal because he refuses to participate in a sheriff’s work program:

“Ray Sansom Plea Deal Scrapped When Defendants Balk at Jail Gang Duty,” by Lee Logan and Steve Bousquet from the St. Petersburg Times

From Pennsylvania, Bonusgate staffer Stephen Keefer files a lawsuit in federal court:

“Acquitted Bonusgate Staffer Files Lawsuit,” by Brad Bumsted and Brian Bowling from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

SB 551 is a response to the recent U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield regarding the state’s Citizens’ Election Program. If signed by Governor M. Jodi Rell, the bill would limit contributions from communicator lobbyists, members of the lobbyist’s immediate family, and political committees established or controlled by the lobbyist or lobbyist’s immediate family to $100, while also banning the bundling of contributions by the same individuals.

Further, the bill expands the list of items not considered to be a contribution, while also prohibiting the knowing solicitation of contributions by state contractors, prospective state contractors, principals of state contractors, and principals of prospective state contractors from the contractor’s employees or a subcontractor or principals of a subcontractor on behalf of exploratory or candidate committees, political committees authorized to make contributions or expenditures to or for the benefit of specified candidates, or a party committee.

Additionally, grants to participating candidates would increase to $6,000,000 for the general election campaign. However, Governor Rell has previously indicated her intent to veto any bill increasing grants to participating candidates, citing state budget concerns.

Photo by jimbowen0306 in Wikipedia.

The legal petition filed by the lawmakers asks a state district court to review Wyoming’s election law in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. At present, Wyoming law prohibits corporations from making campaign contributions, a position which puts it at odds with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

While Wyoming’s election law hasn’t yet been challenged on grounds raised by Citizens United, it is seen by some lawmakers in Cheyenne as only a matter of time before a lawsuit emerges. The lawmakers hope their petition will preempt any such litigation against the state.

Here are some useful Wyoming links:

Wyoming’s eGovernment Site

Wyoming State Legislature Web site

Under the new legislation, the city’s contribution limits of $300 for mayoral and at-large council candidates and $100 for ward council candidates do not apply when candidates are raising money outside of their own elections or reelections and other expenses such as “the duties of public office and seeking nomination or election to another office”.

The new legislation also lifts contribution limits for fundraising efforts by candidates for other candidates or for a political party.

Watch for more news on the Akron City Council Web site and at Ohio.com.

For the time being, the Supreme Court’s ruling stands. Another vote is thought possible in September after Congress returns from the August recess.

Here are three articles for further reading:

“Senate Dems lack votes to overcome Republican filibuster of Disclose Act,” by Alexander Bolton in The Hill.

“Dems table campaign finance reform,” by Meredith Shiner in Politico.

“Bill on political ad disclosures falls a little short in Senate,” by Dan Eggen in the Washington Post.

The committees plan to use funds to make independent expenditures. Citing the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as well as a less-well known decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued this year called SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the FEC concluded corporations, labor organizations, and political committees may make unlimited independent expenditures from their own funds, and individuals may pool unlimited funds in an independent expenditure-only political committee.

In the case of the independent committee Commonsense Ten, a registered, non-connected political committee (Advisory Opinion 2010-11), the FEC concluded it could solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor organizations, and political committees for the purpose of making independent expenditures.

In the case of Club for Growth, Inc., a 501(c)(4) corporation, (Advisory Opinion 2010-09),the FEC concluded on the same basis provided by Citizens United and SpeechNow.org it could establish and administer a committee to solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals in the general public, including contributions given for specific independent expenditures.

The FEC issued both advisory opinions on a vote of 5 to 1. Commissioner Steven T. Walther dissented in both opinions.

The measure will come to a vote on the floor of the Senate early next week. Reid’s move begins the endgame for the legislation even though he does not yet have the votes to overcome the anticipated filibuster from the bill’s opponents.

New York Senator Charles Schumer, who authored S. 3295, the Senate’s version of the DISCLOSE Act, has modified the bill to address concerns raised when H.R. 5175 was passed by the House earlier this summer. Democrats hope the changes will be enough to win the support of Maine GOP Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of whom expressed reservations regarding the House bill. For example, Senator Collins believes H.R. 5175 provides unions with special exemptions and a corresponding unfair political advantage over corporations.

It is unclear at this time whether or not changes to the Senate bill offered by Schumer will be enough to overcome Collins’ and Snowe’s objections. The Senate vote could come as early as Tuesday.

If you are looking for more coverage, the Hill has two articles by Susan Crabtree:

“Schumer files new version of campaign-finance bill to court centrist votes,” July 22, 2010

“Sen. Reid sets up showdown next week on campaign finance,” July23, 2010

Senate Bill 440 would have permitted members of the committee, during their term of service, to participate in elections for federal offices, including allowing their names to be in used in endorsements of candidates. Members would have also been permitted to campaign for candidates seeking federal offices and make contributions to their campaigns.

Citing the potential conflict-of-interest that could arise from members of the ethics committee engaging in political activity, Governor Lynch vetoed the measure on July 20, 2010. “I believe that SB 440 would weaken the Executive Branch Ethics Committee and would compromise the ability of its members to discharge their obligations impartially in the eyes of the public. It could create the perception that partisan politics plays a role in the decisions of the committee,” Lynch said.

For further reading here is the governor’s press release.

Photo by Marc Nozell used under a Creative Commons license.

Lawmakers adopted rules for candidates using social networking Web sites, making Maryland one of the first states to regulate such activity.

Here are two articles for further reading:

“Candidates Must Adhere to New Social Media Rules,” by Julie Bykowicz in the Baltimore Sun

“Maryland Lawmakers Pass New Election Law Restricting Facebook Today,” by Chet Dembeck in the Baltimore Examiner

The Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) has issued an emergency rule regarding independent expenditures by political action committees.

Emergency Rule 970 C.M.R. 2.17, which states a political action committee only raising funds to make independent expenditures, and then only making independent expenditures, will be regarded as an independent expenditure PAC. Unlike other PACs, independent expenditure PACs may raise funds from individuals without limit, and from corporations and other entities otherwise prohibited from contributing to PACs pursuant to Massachusetts law. Independent expenditure PACs are subject to all other requirements applying to other PACs, including disclosure requirements.

An independent expenditure PAC may not directly or indirectly coordinate its campaign activity with any Massachusetts candidate or political committee. If the independent expenditure PAC makes a coordinated expenditure it becomes a PAC subject to all requirements, including limits on contributions applying to other PACs.

Finally, the term “election” includes any preliminary, primary, or special general election. All preliminary reports of independent expenditures must be filed electronically. The emergency rule was effective upon filing on Friday, July 16, 2010.

Photo from the National Atlas of the United States.