LobbyComply Blog

Yesterday, the judge who ruled corporations may contribute directly to federal candidates reaffirmed his decision, but held it only applies in the criminal case before him. Federal District Judge James C. Cacheris continues to find the “logic remains inescapable” that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United dictates corporations have the same contribution rights as human beings.

The judge writes: “Again, for better or worse, Citizens United held that the First Amendment treats corporations and individuals equally for the purposes of political speech. This leaves no logical room for an individual to be able to donate $2,500 to a campaign while a corporation … cannot donate a cent.” However, his decision states the “flat ban on direct corporate contributions to political campaigns is unconstitutional as applied to this case, as opposed to being unconstitutional as applied to all corporate donations.”

After reviewing the possible impact of his decision in US v Danielczyk, and the unaddressed political contribution issues since the Citizens United decision, the judge characterizes his ruling by concluding it “adds a small drop to what is already a very large bucket.”

This blog post updates a previous article, “Corporate Contribution Ban Found Unconstitutional” by George Ticoras on May 27.

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam has signed Senate Bill 1915 (companion to House Bill 1003) into law.

The bill allows corporations to contribute to candidates by removing the previous statutory prohibition. The bill also adjusts contribution limits to reflect change in the Consumer Price Index.

The new law is effective immediately.

We have added three new jurisdictions for which our online clients will find comprehensive, timely, and accurate information that includes: complete calendar of reporting deadlines; critical statutory citations; extensive directories of contact information; summaries of each state law; detailed reference charts on goods and services contributions; highlights of every statute; copies of all required forms; and much more.

The new jurisdictions are:

• Doral, FL
• Henderson, NV
• Spokane, WA

The image of North America by Bosonic dressing on Wikipedia.

The following was announced on the Federal Election Commission’s “Tips for Treasurers” page on May 23:

“The FEC’s Public Records Office and Press Office have launched a web page to track new committee registrations. Updated daily at 7:00 a.m. Eastern, it is available at http://www.fec.gov/press/press2011/new_form1dt.shtml.

A similar page launched earlier this year tracks Presidential Statements of Candidacy.”

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has signed House Bill 2080 into law. This bill requires every treasurer for a political committee to report the name and address of each candidate for whom an in-kind expenditure in the aggregate of $300 or more has been made. The political committee treasurer must also report the services or products provided, as well as the amount, date, and purpose of each expenditure.

A second provision in the bill requires political committee treasurers to report the name and address of each candidate for state and local office who is the subject of an expenditure, made without the cooperation or consent of the candidate or the candidate’s committee, expressly advocating the nomination, election, or defeat of such candidate, in the aggregate amount or fair market value of $300 or more.

Effective January 1, 2011, political committees were required to file a quarterly report for the first time.

Due to a large number of non-filings by committees required to file this report, the Illinois Board of Elections is granting a one-time amnesty from civil penalty to any political committee that files their quarterly report on or before June 11, 2011.

Failure to report by June 11, 2011 will result in a formal complaint filed against the committee and civil penalties of up to $5,000.

A bill concerning campaign communication disclosures has been vetoed by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal. Citing to potential vagueness associated with the bill’s provisions and First Amendment concerns, Deal vetoed Senate Bill 163.

The General Assembly will now have to muster the support to override the veto if the measure is to become law.

Senate Bill 163 would require a clear statement on all campaign communications concerning the source of payment financing the item or items used in the communication, as well as requiring specific disclosures depending on the person or persons financing the communication.

The House Majority PAC and the Majority PAC, two independent expenditure entities, formally requested an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission asking whether federal officeholders and candidates may solicit unlimited contributions on behalf of PACs. The request was sparked by the newly created Republican Super PAC, founded by James Bopp, and its plan to ask candidates to solicit and direct unlimited contributions on its behalf.

These solicited funds would be earmarked for independent expenditures supporting or opposing specifically designated candidates. Additionally the request asks if candidates may participate in fundraisers for PACs even if they cannot solicit contributions.

Governor Martin O’Malley signed into law a bill which requires corporations to disclose to shareholders the dates and amounts of political independent expenditures and the candidate or ballot issue to which the expenses related, or post a link to this information from its homepage.

All entities making an aggregate independent expenditure of $10,000 or more in an election cycle will be required to file reports detailing information such as the identities of those making, or those exercising direction or control over those making, the independent expenditures. Included in the report must be the identity of each person who made cumulative donations in excess of $51 to the entity making the independent expenditure. Entities include corporations, partnerships, committees, associations, and labor organizations.

The law redefines independent expenditure to mean expressly advocating the success or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or ballot issue. Separate and distinct from the definition of independent expenditure, the law also defines electioneering communications to cover expenditures for broadcasts made within 60 days of an election. Based on the amount of money spent and the size of the audience of the broadcast, separate and additional disclosure reports may be required for electioneering communications.

The new law takes effect December 1.

Reaction to the leaked draft presidential executive order requiring vendor disclosure of political contributions has been increasing. A hearing was held in the House last week to examine the proposed executive order, with testimony being presented from various witnesses.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, writing on behalf of a coalition of more than 80 business groups and trade associations, has strongly protested the proposed executive order, stating, “American businesspeople should not be forced to limit the exercise of their constitutional rights under a new and oppressive regulatory scheme.”

More than 30 public-interest groups have signed a letter in support of the draft executive order, writing, “In order to keep in check actual or perceived corruption in government contracting, it is imperative that there be full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures by federal government contractors.”

If the draft presidential executive order were to be signed, it would be effective immediately, requiring every entity submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within the two years prior to submission of their offer.

Photo of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce courtesy of APK on Wikipedia.

Following a report by the Colorado Springs Gazette noting mayoral runoff candidate Steve Bach had failed to include the occupation and employer of his contributors, which is required by state law, Young informed the newspaper Bach would have to file the missing information.

Young reversed her decision the next day, however, by calling the disclosure of the information “optional” due to the fact Colorado Springs election law trumps state election law and there is no specific requirement for reporting the information on the reporting forms.

This is not the first time confusion has entered into the campaign finance requirements concerning the mayoral election. In February, candidates received conflicting information about the legality of direct corporate contributions. The Colorado Springs City Council eventually adopted a resolution permitting the contributions in order to clarify the issue.

Photo of the Colorado Springs City Hall by David Shankbone on Wikipedia.

The 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision of the District Court which upheld a new Minnesota law that revealed political donations from several corporations. The law was enacted in May of 2010 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United 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 to publicize corporate campaign spending.

In affirming the decision, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with claims that Minnesota’s disclosure requirements effectively prohibit corporate independent expenditures and impose burdensome regulations that inhibit free speech.  The Court continued that Minnesota’s regulations are similar to laws upheld by the Supreme Court and the regulations on corporate independent expenditures are less burdensome than federal regulations on PACs.

Today at 1:30pm EDT, the hearing examining the proposed pay-to-play presidential executive order will be held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Small Business Committee.

Here is a link to the live coverage on the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform website.

The SunFoundation will be liveblogging the hearing at:  http://bit.ly/mxIbFe

You can also follow the conversations on Twitter with the hashtag #opengov.

This post is a follow-up to Tuesday’s post “Hearings Set for Anticipated Executive Order on Pay-to-Play” by George Ticoras.

On Thursday, May 12, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Small Business Committee will hold a joint hearing to examine a proposed presidential executive order requiring disclosure of political contributions by governmental contractors.

The draft proposed executive order, which was leaked to the press, would require every entity submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within the two years prior to submission of their offer. The disclosure requirement includes contributions made to federal candidates, parties, and committees, by the bidding entity, its officers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control. Contributions made to parties for independent expenditures and electioneering communications would also have to be reported. These disclosures would be required whenever the aggregate amount of the contributions and expenditures by the bidding entity exceeds $5,000.

The hearing is scheduled to examine the proposed executive order, evaluate its impact and consequences on the federal acquisition system, and determine whether it introduces politics into the procurement process.