State and Federal currently offers coverage for 187 municipalities, in addition to the 50 U.S. states, other U.S. jurisdictions, and Canada.

We have added six 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:

• Bridgeport, CT
• Huntsville, AL
• Provo, UT
• Rockford, IL
• West Valley City, UT
• Winston-Salem, NC

The image of North America by Bosonic dressing on Wikipedia.

While not as strict as the bills originally proposed by the Governor, the newly passed rules represent a dramatic overhaul to Alabama ethics law. Under the new rules, PACs will be forbidden from making transfers of funds to other PACs with a few exceptions.

State lawmakers will be unable to hold a second public job, and one bill imposes a ban on “pass-through pork” whereby a legislator can appropriate funds to a specific agency or project without legislative approval. In the new year, lobbyists will be required to complete a training program, and the State Ethics Commission will have subpoena power.

Another bill signed by Governor Riley will forbid public employees from donating to political groups via payroll deduction. This law has been criticized as politically motivated by state Democrats.

Just as the use of social media has exploded with the average person in everyday interaction, so it goes with the use the of social media in political campaigns. And just as political ads have prompted regulations in traditional media – in print, radio, and television – ethics oversight agencies in the states are now facing the need to regulate political ads in social media.

In essence, we have a 1970s post-Watergate system of political ads regulation facing a completely new set of challenges with today’s political activity on the internet. How do you get all parties to agree on meanings and terms for features in electronic ads when there is no industry standard? How do you identify the source of funding for a Google or Facebook ad? How would you fit a disclosure statement into a tweet when you are limited to 140 characters? Some have said regulation of political ads in social media constitutes a restriction of the exercise of freedom of speech. Others have argued that endorsements by influential bloggers should be considered as in-kind contributions.

Two states to watch are Maryland and California. The Maryland State Board of Elections and California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) have established rules for proper use of social media by political campaigns, PACs, and private individuals. At the Council on Government Ethics Laws 2010 conference in Washington, D.C., I had the privilege of meeting Jared DeMarinis, Maryland’s Director for the Maryland Board of Elections Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance, and Roman Porter, Executive Director of the FPPC. It was a COGEL breakfast group discussion with them that prompted me to offer these resources in this post.

Here is the link for Maryland’s Summary Guide to Candidacy and Campaign Finance Laws. Chapter 12, section 6 deals with electronic media. Maryland’s answer to the issue of disclosure within the limited space of a social network appears to be requiring a hyperlink to a landing page that would host the disclosure information. Government Technology has a nice article from August 3, 2010 called, “Maryland Social Media Campaign Rules Take Effect,” which describes the new regulations.

California’s FPPC offers a report from the Subcommittee on Internet Political Activity called “Internet Political Activity and the Political Reform Act,” dated August 11, 2010. Here is a memorandum describing amendments, from October 2010. They also offer a helpful online FAQ page called “Electronic Media: Paid Political Advertisements.” These resources have a great deal of guidance regarding disclosure in social media political ads, what triggers the need for disclosure, and how disclosure is to be done in social media.

Perhaps the work of these two agencies will be the template for other jurisdictions! We will be watching…

Web 2.0 tag cloud graphic by Markus Angermeier on Wikipedia. Seal of California by Zscout370 on Wikipedia.

The State Ethics Commission has approved an increase in contribution limits for both statewide and other offices. The contribution limit for a statewide office during each primary and general election has been increased from $6,100 to $6,300, while the limit for a runoff election for the primary or general election has increased from $3,600 to $3,700.

Additionally, contribution limits for all other offices during each primary and general election have increased from $2,400 to $2,500, and from $1,200 to $1,300 for a runoff election resulting from the primary or general election.

The Republican National Committee has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging limits on the amounts a political party can spend in coordination with candidates. Filed on the RNC’s behalf by James Bopp, Jr., the RNC argues the expenditures constitute the party’s free speech.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele said, “The right of political parties to express their members’ views about their candidates for office while also working directly with those candidates to help elect them is crucial to a healthy democracy.”

The case being appealed, Cao v. FEC, found contribution limits constitutional as applied to the RNC.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has proposed a ban on political contributions from banks which arrange derivative trading with federal, public, and municipal agencies. The banks would be prohibited from making campaign donations to public officials who have the power to award work to the banks.

The commission voted unanimously to seek public comment on December 16 with the view to complete the regulations by 2011.

Following a recent meeting, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board issued a request for comment on a rule regulating the business activities of municipal advisors with municipal entities when they have made political contributions to officials responsible for awarding that business.

You can read the press release from the MSRB here.

State Senator Loretta Weinberg has proposed legislation to end loopholes in the New Jersey pay-to-play laws and to end “wheeling”, the channeling of money through different political committees to avoid contribution limits. “This new bill will give us the iron-clad restrictions against the practice of using campaign cash to influence decision-makers that has unfortunately become business as usual in the Garden State,” said Weinberg.

Additionally, county and municipal political parties would be banned from donating to each other and limited to donating $25,000 to state parties. County parties would only be allowed to donate to local parties within their jurisdiction. Senator Weinberg would like her pay-to-play reform added as a part of Governor Christie’s municipal and county “tool kit”, but has not received any response from the Governor.

Photo of Sen. Loretta Weinberg by Bbsrock on Wikipedia.

Legends Bank is seeking to block enforcement of Missouri’s new ethics law, found in Senate Bill 844, which took effect August 28.  Legends Bank and its president filed suit Monday in Cole County Circuit Court citing language that limits the bank’s right to make political donations.  Senate Bill 844 sought to limit politicians’ ability to conceal the source of money by moving it through several political action committees.

Legends Bank claims that in determining which individuals and entities can donate to political action committees, lawmakers appear to have limited the ability of state-chartered banks to donate.   Republican Senate president pro-tem Charlie Shields, who sponsored Senate Bill 844, stated to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch the goal of the bill was never to stop banks or corporations from making political donations and that the disputed language should be fairly easy to fix.

Photo of the Missouri Capitol by RebelAt of English Wikipedia.

The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought by Colorado Ethics Watch concerning the so-called “magic words” required of political ads. Colorado Ethics Watch filed the complaint against Senate Majority Fund and Colorado Leadership Fund after the two 527 political organizations ran campaign ads supporting state legislative candidates in the 2008 election but did not register as political committees or submit independent expenditure disclosures for the ads.

An Administrative Law Judge determined, and the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed, registration and reporting were not required because the ads did not contain terms such as “vote for” or “defeat.” It is expected the case will be briefed in early 2011, with oral arguments taking place in the spring.

Seal of the State of Colorado by Svgalbertian on Wikipedia.

At the heart of the controversy is the Government Accountability Board’s (G.A.B.) rule which took effect August 1, 2010. The rule says advertisements broadcast in the weeks before an election must disclose their funding sources even if they do not expressly advocate a vote for or against a party or candidate.

Prior to the amendment, groups could evade disclosure requirements by running advertisements disguised as issue advocacy, so-called “phony issue ads”. Such ads were not considered political in nature as they did not contain what G.A.B. spokesperson Reid Magney calls the “magic words”: specific calls for viewers to vote for, elect, or approve a given candidate. The G.A.B.’s rule was meant close the “phony issue ad” loophole.

The Wisconsin legislature, for its part, permitted the G.A.B. rule to come into force on August 1, 2010. Since the rule’s effective date, however, groups across the state have claimed the rule infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech. Several lawsuits, including two in federal court, have been filed challenging the rule’s constitutionality.

The judges in both federal cases have stayed the suits filed in their courts pending a resolution in the state case. Oral arguments begin in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on March 9, 2011.

Maryland General Assembly Delegate Justin Ross will introduce legislation requiring local officials to recuse themselves from voting on building projects if a developer contributed to a shared campaign account affiliated with the official.

Presently, local leaders may vote on land use projects while indirectly receiving political contribution from these developers through accounts shared with General Assembly candidates.

In addition to the officials recusing themselves, developers would have to provide detailed information about all contributions to individual and shared accounts when they are requesting a land use decision from a council.

The United States Supreme Court will again review Arizona’s attempt to level the playing field for political candidates, agreeing to determine the constitutionality of Arizona’s law to distribute campaign subsidies to publicly funded candidates who face big-spending opponents.

In June, the Supreme Court blocked a portion of Arizona’s Clean Elections program, which authorized the state to provide “matching funds” to those candidates who face opponents spending large amounts of their own money or outside groups that target them.  The court combined two cases, Arizona Free Enterprise, et al v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett, and will hear arguments in the spring of 2011.

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

The province of Quebec is seeking to make alterations to campaign finance law in an effort to reduce fraud and restore the confidence of the public in how political parties are financed.  Quebec’s government will follow the recommendations of the province’s Chief Electoral Officer and will make amendments to Assembly Bill 113.

In present form, Bill 113 seeks to prevent companies from making contributions to political parties in the names of employees. However, the bill will be amended to permit voters to make annual contributions of a maximum $1,000, reduced from $3,000, to political parties and candidates, and require all contribution checks to first pass through the province’s Chief Electoral Officer, who will then distribute the money to the designated political party or candidate. Further, names of all donors would be made public, a break from current law which requires only the names of those contributing in excess of $200 be publicly available.

Supporters of the measure are touting this as the first major reform in financing Quebec’s political parties since 1977. The provisions of the bill are expected to be adopted prior to the end of the Assembly’s Fall session.

Image of the coat of arms of the Province of Quebec by Jérôme BLUM on Wikipedia.