Initiative 122, a ballot measure proposing to raise property taxes in Seattle to create a publicly financed elections program, will appear on the general election ballot in Seattle. If passed, the “Honest Elections Seattle” measure would impose a $30 million tax levy over a 10 year period, granting citizens four $25 “democracy vouchers” to use towards the campaigns of city candidates.

Initiative 122 would also ban contributions from corporations with medium-sized and large city contracts as well as corporations who lobby city officials. Contribution limits would also be lowered under the measure, from $700 per election cycle to $500.

Voters in Seattle will have an opportunity to approve or deny Initiative 122 on November 3, 2015, at the regularly scheduled general election.

Today, in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (docket 12-536), the United States Supreme Court ruled aggregate limits on federal campaign contributions are an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of political expression and association.

Background:

Federal law imposes two types of limits on individual political contributions.

Base limits restrict the amount an individual may contribute to:

• A candidate committee;
• A national party committee;
• A state, local, and district party committee; and
• A political action committee.

Biennial limits restrict the aggregate amount an individual may contribute biennially to:

• Candidate committees; and
• All other committees.

Shaun McCutcheon is an Alabama businessman who regularly makes political contributions to Republican candidates and the Republican National Committee. McCutcheon wanted to contribute $26,200 more to candidates and committees than the aggregate ceiling would allow. The Republican National Committee was also a plaintiff in the suit.

McCutcheon did not challenge the base limits on contributions to individual candidates and entities, but, wanting to give to more candidates and political entities than allowed by law, he challenged the aggregate limits.

Decision:

In a 5-4 decision, with the majority joined by Justice Thomas in a separate concurring opinion, the Court found aggregate limits do not further the permissible government interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito, found the aggregate contribution limits do not further the only governmental interest accepted as legitimate in Buckley v Valeo. The 1976 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court found aggregate limits to be a permissible government regulation to curtail corruption or the appearance of corruption.

In McCutcheon, the Court stated, “Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics.”

The Court equated political contributions with “political campaign speech,” writing, “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Effect on other jurisdictions: (updated June 16, 2014)

The McCutcheon decision’s effects extend beyond the federal campaign finance laws.

At its May 14, 2014 meeting, the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission announced it would no longer enforce the state’s aggregate contribution limit absent further direction from the General Assembly or a court of competent jurisdiction. The commission stressed, however, the base contribution limits would remain in full force and effect.

In a policy statement dated June 4, 2014, the Maine Commission on Government Ethics and Practices stated it would no longer enforce the yearly $25,000 aggregate contribution limit applicable to individuals and entities contained in Maine Revised Statutes section 1015(3), barring guidance from the legislature or a court. The policy statement noted the commission’s intention to study the issues and perhaps propose legislation during the next legislative session.

The Maryland State Board of Elections issued a guidance memo stating the board would no longer enforce a $10,000 aggregate limit on donors’ contributions to state candidates during a four-year election cycle, while stressing the $4,000 limit on personal contributions to any one candidate was still in place.

The Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) announced it will no longer enforce the state’s $12,500 aggregate limit on the amount an individual may contribute to all candidates, but will continue to enforce the $5,000 aggregate limit on contributions by individuals to party committees.

A provision in Minnesota’s campaign finance law known as the “special sources limit” will no longer be enforced as applied to individual large donors. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law with respect to individual large donors in response to a challenge by the Institute for Justice on First Amendment grounds. Under section 10A.27(11) of the Minnesota Statutes, the special sources limit prohibits a campaign from raising more than 20 percent of its total contributions from lobbyists, political committees, and large donors contributing more than one half of the individual contribution limit. Donovan issued the injunction in light of the precedent set by McCutcheon. The defendants have the opportunity to appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If they choose not to appeal, the case will proceed to a final ruling at the district court level.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down a campaign finance law limiting contributions to super PACs. Sections 14-114(8) and 14-126 of the New York Election Law imposed an annual aggregate contribution limit of $150,000 per contributor. Plaintiff New York Progress and Protection PAC challenged the aggregate contribution limits on First Amendment grounds. Citing the precedent established in Citizens United and McCutcheon, the judge enjoined New York’s aggregate contribution limit as an unconstitutional ban on free speech. In its May 2014 meeting, the State Board of Elections determined the $150,000 yearly aggregate limit on political contributions from individuals can no longer be enforced in light of recent federal court decisions. New York campaign finance law imposes a similar aggregate limit of $5,000 on a corporation’s yearly contributions. The board made no ruling with regard to the corporate limit; however that limit is being challenged in federal court.

On April 3, 2014, the Puerto Rico Office of the Electoral Comptroller issued an informational newsletter in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. While the Court referenced similar aggregate limits in other states and jurisdictions, it did not go so far as to declare them unconstitutional. Therefore, the office is not taking any immediate action with regard to the Puerto Rico aggregate campaign finance limits established in 2011. It will request an opinion from the Puerto Rico Secretary of Justice to determine how the Court’s decision relates to Puerto Rico law. The office will issue new informational bulletins as further developments arise.

On April 16, 2014, the Rhode Island Board of Elections voted to support the creation of legislation eliminating aggregate political contribution limits. The vote was in reaction to the McCutcheon decision. State law currently prohibits an individual from making contributions of more than $10,000 in the aggregate to more than one candidate, political action committee (PAC), or political party committee or to a combination of candidates, PACs, and political party committees within a calendar year.

In Vermont, Senate Bill 82 added an aggregate contribution limit of $40,000 per election cycle, which was to take effect January 1, 2015. However, the implementation of the aggregate contribution limit was contingent on the Supreme Court ruling in favor of aggregate limits in McCutcheon. Because the Supreme Court in fact ruled against aggregate limits, Vermont’s aggregate limit will not go into effect.

Wisconsin’s aggregate limits had already been challenged in Young v. Government Accountability Board. The parties in that case agreed to put the case on hold until the McCutcheon decision was issued. Following the ruling, the Government Accountability Board reached a settlement in which it agreed the aggregate contribution limits for individuals and PACs contributing to state candidates were no longer enforceable.

The Wyoming Joint Corporations, Appropriations, and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee ordered a draft bill to repeal the state’s aggregate contribution limits, which conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon.

In light of the ruling in McCutcheon, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission announced it would no longer enforce the aggregate limits on contributions to city and school board candidates. Limits on contributions to individual candidates remain in place.

The San Francisco Ethics Commission adopted a resolution stating it will not enforce the aggregate limit on contributions to city candidates in light of the McCutcheon ruling. The Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code imposes an aggregate limit of $500 multiplied by the number of city elective offices to be voted on in the election. The city’s $500 limit on contributions from an individual to a single city candidate remains in full force.

Analysis:

Quid pro quo corruption narrowly defined:

The Court maintained a narrow definition of quid pro quo corruption, preventing the government from limiting the First Amendment right to make contributions to as many candidates as an individual would like, within the base limits of contributions.

In the decision, the Court marked a solid delineation between corruption and appreciation: “[T]here is a clear, administrable line between money beyond the base limits funneled in an identifiable way to a candidate—for which the candidate feels obligated—and money within the base limits given widely to a candidate’s party—for which the candidate, like all other members of the party, feels grateful. . . . To recast such shared interest, standing alone, as an opportunity for quid pro quo corruption would dramatically expand government regulation of the politi­cal process.”

The Court found the possi­bility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption.

The Court wrote, “The Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candi­dates it may endorse.”

Arguing against the dissent’s argument that corruption could still occur even without the circumvention of the base contribution limits, the majority found such an argument would broaden the definition of quid pro quo corruption. The Court stated the dissent’s interpretation “dangerously broadens the . . . definition of quid pro quo corruption . . . and targets as corruption the general, broad-based support of a political party.”

Circumvention of base limits:

The Court found the argument that aggregate contributions could circumvent base contribution limits unconvincing.

The majority said the basis for allowing the law on aggregate limits to stand falls on “speculative” scenarios of corruption, which the Court found “highly implausible” and “hard to believe.” The Court said “experience and common sense” foreclose on many of the scenarios of schemes to funnel money, including one scenario the District Court found had merit. The Court found, “Based on what we can discern from experience, the indiscriminate ban on all contributions above the aggre­gate limits is disproportionate to the Government’s inter­est in preventing circumvention.”

The Court stressed that once an individual reaches the aggregate limit, the law denies “the individual all ability to exercise his expressive and associational rights by contributing to someone who will advocate for his policy preferences.”

Disclosure:

The Court also argued disclosure of contributions “minimizes the poten­tial for abuse of the campaign finance system.”

The majority maintained lifting the aggregate limits encourages money away from entities not subject to disclosure: “Indi­viduals can, for example, contribute unlimited amounts to 501(c) organizations, which are not required to publicly disclose their donors.”

Citing Citizens United, Justice Roberts wrote, “Disclosure requirements burden speech, but—unlike the aggregate limits—they do not impose a ceiling on speech.” In Citizens United, the Court held 8-1 that laws requiring the disclosure of political contribution were constitutional.

Legislative alternatives suggested by the Court:

The majority opinion suggested Congress could create other legislation to curtail circumvention of the base limits, such as enacting legislation targeting restrictions on transfers among candidates and political committees.

Additionally they wrote, “Congress might also consider a modified version of the aggregate limits, such as one that prohibits donors who have contributed the current maximum sums from further contributing to political committees that have indicated they will support candidates to whom the donor has already contributed.”

Overturning Buckley v Valeo’s holding on aggregate limits:

In overturning the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court Buckley v Valeo’s ruling on aggregate limits, the Court found the 38-year-old decision did not thoroughly address aggregate limits in its analysis. The Court also found subsequent laws enacted have “considerably strengthened” statutory safeguards against circumventing base limits through the transfer of contributions between parties and political committees. Additionally the Court argues Buckley did not address the “overbreadth challenge” with respect to the aggregate limits.

The Court rejected an alternative provided in the Supreme Court’s prior Buckley decision finding a person could personally volunteer for a candidate. The majority found “personal volunteering is not a realistic alternative for those who wish to support a wide variety of candidates or causes.”

The Court also heavily relied on campaign finance cases decided in the last few years, such as Citizens United v FEC and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v Bennett.

Justice Thomas, in his separate opinion concurring with the majority ruling, writes Buckley “denigrates core First Amendment speech and should be overruled.”

Q. When must direct corporate political contributions be disclosed?

A. At least 15 states require some sort of corporate contribution disclosure, whether it be on a campaign finance statement or lobbyist/employer disclosure report.

Campaign finance reports typically require an annual aggregate threshold be exceeded before a report is triggered.  For example, in Utah, direct corporate contributions must exceed $750 in the aggregate per calendar year before a report is required.  In Georgia, the threshold is $25,000.  In Nebraska, a corporation making more than $250 in direct corporate contributions must file a report within 10 days after the end of the calendar month in which the contribution is made.

Conversely, lobbying reports typically start at “dollar one.” In New Mexico, lobbyists are required to report all political contributions made by the employer, regardless of amount.  The same holds true in South Carolina and New Hampshire.

And then there’s California—a hybrid of both campaign finance and lobbying disclosure.  Direct corporate contributions must exceed $10,000 in the aggregate per calendar year before a campaign finance report is due.  However, until this threshold is exceeded, corporate political contributions must be disclosed on the lobbyist employer’s quarterly report.

As always, the best practice is to track all corporate political contributions in the event disclosure is required.   Likewise, you need to familiarize yourself with the reporting requirements in those jurisdictions where your company is making contributions.

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.

The Alabama Legislature adjourned just before midnight on Monday, May 20, 2013, but not before passing major changes to the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act.

The most significant change is the elimination of limits on corporate contributions to candidates and political action committees. Under the new law, corporations will be permitted to contribute in the same manner as individuals, who are not subject to any contribution limits, with the exception of retaining the state’s pay-to-play prohibition on contributions to the Public Service Commission by utilities the commission regulates. The bill also makes 527 organizations subject to the ban on PAC-to-PAC transfers and adds enforcement and penalty provisions.

The Secretary of State’s Office will release information regarding the effective date of these provisions since the law must first receive Department of Justice preclearance before it becomes enforceable.

It has been a long cold winter for most of the country and though it may be hard to see, sunshine and warm weather are fast approaching. While cold temperatures and snow are making summer seem far in the distance, Major League Baseball’s opening week is upon us and that means summer is close. With America’s pastime finally here, the Sunlight Foundation did a report on how much Major League Baseball and its clubs contributed to campaigns and PACs throughout the last election cycle.

According to the report, MLB organizations contributed more than $24 million last election cycle. The Chicago Cubs can’t win on the field (they have not been to a World Series since 1945 and have not won since 1908), but they certainly won the political spending war. The Cubs spent $13.9 million, more than $12 million more than any other team. Most of that money, more than $12 million, went to a PAC started by the Ricketts family (the team’s ownership group) established to fight wasteful spending in Washington and the defeat of President Obama. However, not all of the family veered to the right with their spending. Laura Ricketts spend more than $500,000 on Democratic candidates and PACs.

The Cubs rival, and President Obama’s favorite team, the Chicago White Sox were one of the few teams who favored the Democrats in their spending. The White Sox gave several donations to Obama, amounting to $60,000 and only $7,000 to Obama’s opponent in the presidential election, Mitt Romney.

Not all teams spend heavily though. The Toronto Blue Jays did not contribute a single penny, as federal laws do not allow foreign contributions to campaigns. The Oakland Athletics only gave a $5,000 contribution to the league’s PAC and gave nothing to either the Republican or Democratic parties. The New York Yankees, owners of the league’s highest payroll at nearly $229 million, only spent $43,000 off the field in political donations.

In addition to the individual teams contributing, Major League Baseball operates its own PAC, called the MLB Commissioner’s Office PAC. The league collects donations from each team and contributes fairly evenly to both the Democrats and Republicans. The Los Angeles Dodgers were the only team to eschew a donation to the league’s PAC.

Most of the donations coming from baseball were made by team executives and owners. However, a few current and former players decided to contribute. Players to contribute to the Republicans included White Sox second baseman Gordon Beckham, New York Yankees designated hitter Travis Hafner, and San Diego Padres closer Huston Street. Los Angeles Dodgers outfield Tony Gwynn Jr. was the only current player to contribute to the Democrats, but he was joined by Hall of Famers Hank Aaron and Lou Brock.

For a complete look at how each team contributed, check out the Sunlight Foundation’s report. And just remember, no matter how miserable the weather may be today, baseball is here and summer is right around the corner.

Today the United States Supreme Court decided not to grant a review of the case of United States v. Danielczyk.

Danielczyk is a criminal case in which one of the defense arguments was the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 prohibiting direct corporate contributions to federal candidates was unconstitutional.

The U.S. District Court Judge presiding over the case had agreed with the defense and, based on Citizens United v. FEC, found corporations have an equal right to make political contributions under federal law as do human beings. The judge’s decision was reversed on appeal. The reversal on this issue of law now stands.

The Illinois State Board of Elections has announced that campaign contributions limits have been increased with the start of the new year. According to statute, on January 1 of every odd-numbered year, the board of elections must adjust the contribution limits due to inflation.

Under the updated limits, a candidate political committee may accept, over the course of an election cycle, no more than $5,300 from an individual, $10,500 form a corporation, labor organization, or association, and $52,600 from a political action committee. A political party committee and a political action committee may accept no more than $10,500 from an individual, $21,100 from a corporation, labor organization, or association, and $52,600 from a political action committee.

Absent any legislation, these contribution limits will remain in place until January 1, 2015 and will be in effect for the next gubernatorial election.

Q. I am interested in making contributions to state candidates in the upcoming elections. Does the fact that I’m a registered lobbyist affect my ability to contribute?

A. In certain states, being a registered lobbyist does impact your ability to give to a political candidate, ranging from a total ban on political activity, to simply having to report the contributions on your periodic reports.

In Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, lobbyists may not make contributions to lawmakers while the state legislature is in session. Fortunately, in the context of the upcoming elections, most states have adjourned sine die. In California, a lobbyist may not make a contribution to a candidate for any office for which the person is registered to lobby. Because most lobbyists are registered to communicate with the legislature, this ends up being nearly a total ban on contributions to legislators. Similarly, in Kentucky, a lobbyist registered with the legislative branch may not make a contribution to a lawmaker. In Alaska, a lobbyist is only allowed to contribute to candidates for office within his or her voting district.

There are several states in which lobbyists are allowed to make contributions, but must disclose the donations on their lobbyist reports. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Washington are examples.

Some states have unique provisions for politically-active lobbyists. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a lobbyist who makes political contributions must register and report in the same manner as PACs. Minnesota lobbyists must include their registration numbers in the memo section of campaign contribution checks.

If you or a member of your team would like to make a campaign contribution in a state in which you are registered, please contact a member of the State and Federal Communications Compliance Department for fact-specific guidance.

(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.

Q. Are there any additional compliance requirements of which to be aware because this is a Presidential election year?

 A. In a word, no. However, given the substantial increase in federal, state, and local contributions, it is important to keep in mind some compliance basics during an election year:

• Be aware of what restrictions exist in a specific jurisdiction regarding pre-election contributions and/or communications. Several states have laws restricting contributions within a certain time period of an election. Federally, there are time-period restrictions associated with election communications;
• Track reportable contributions that may only come into play during an election year. For instance, at the federal level, contributions made to an inaugural committee are reportable on the LD-203;
• The same gift laws apply leading up to an election as the rest of the year. Understand the definition of a gift as it relates to a “covered official” from any given jurisdiction and don’t violate it because you happen to be attending an election-related activity, including conventions;
• Most jurisdictions have personal, corporate and/or PAC contribution limits. Be diligent in monitoring contributions so as not to surpass those limits;
• Don’t rely on a “covered official” from any jurisdiction to know his/her jurisdiction’s limits or restrictions. Be proactive in determining restrictions ahead of time; and
• Consider implementing “Election Year” guidelines within your organization to keep everyone on the same page.

In an election year, the increase in activity coupled with jurisdictional differences can make compliance a little trickier. By following these fundamental guidelines, you are more likely to ensure that at the end of the day you can say, “I Comply.” As always, should you have any questions regarding your compliance efforts, don’t hesitate to refer to State and Federal Communication’s on-line source books or contact us directly.

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.

Sarah Kovit is a Compliance Associate at State and Federal Communications who is a fluent Spanish speaker and who has experience working with Puerto Rican officials and tracking newly enacted legislation. She is here to assist you with your Puerto Rican compliance needs.

According to Kovit: “Navigating the lobbying, political contribution, and procurement lobbying laws in Puerto Rico can be tricky. English copies of newly enacted legislation are rarely available and English language assistance with your questions is not always available. In the last year alone, Puerto Rico has passed a new election code, updated the PAC reporting structure, and created a pay to play law which affects organizations conducting business in Puerto Rico.”

You can contact Sarah Kovit at skovit@stateandfed.com.

The 2013 Federal Budget proposed by President Obama would remove provisions put in the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which prohibit federal agencies from requiring the disclosure of political contributions and expenditures from vendors bidding on federal contracts.

The prohibition was inserted into the 2012 Act as a response to a draft executive order which was leaked in the spring of last year. The executive order would have required disclosure of campaign contributions and political expenditures by bidders of federal contracts.

“The White House, contrary to the intent of Congress, is apparently still trying to advance a policy that would inject politics into the federal contracting process instead of focusing on promoting competition and best value in contracting,” said U.S. Senator Susan Collins in a minority press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.

Even with the current prohibition of disclosure from bidders, some groups are urging the President to require federal contractors disclose their political contributions after the bidding process is completed and a federal contract is awarded.

A brief review of this issue can be found here.

A Montana Supreme Court’s decision upholding the state’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate, in spite of Citizens United v. FEC, has been appealed to the US Supreme Court.

According to the SCOTUSblog, Justice Kennedy has called for a response from the state of Montana by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, February 15.

For a detailed explanation of the appeal, see Lyle Denniston’s article on SCOTUSblog at http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/new-citizens-united-sequel-2.

In December of last year, the Montana Supreme Court found Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act.

In the Court’s majority opinion in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana, the Court wrote, “The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The Court concluded the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions, emphasizing the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

In making its argument, the decision asserts that a “material factual distinction between the present case and Citizens United is the extent of the regulatory burden imposed by the challenged law.” The Court found in contrast to the “complexity and ambiguity” of restrictions for federal PACs, PACs formed and maintained in the state are “easily implemented” by the filing of “simple and straight-forward forms or reports.”

Attorney James Bopp, Jr., counsel of record for the petitioner, argues for the US Supreme Court to summarily reverse the Montana decision, writing, “The lower court’s refusal to follow Citizens United is such an obvious, blatant disregard of its duty to follow this Court’s decisions that summary reversal is proper.”

U.S. Congressman Chris Van Hollen has introduced a campaign finance bill in the House called DISCLOSE 2012 Act.

Like the similarly entitled bill introduced and defeated in 2010, House Resolution 4010, the Disclosure of Information on Spending on Campaigns Leads to Open and Secure Elections Act of 2012, aims to increase the reporting requirements of political expenditures and contributions by corporations and other outside groups.

Corporations, unions, and other groups, will be required to report certain campaign-related activity to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), to disclose their campaign-related expenditures to their shareholders and members, and to make their political spending available to the public, through a hyper-link to the FEC, on their websites.

In his press release, Congressman Van Hollen states, “I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation – if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from the DISCLOSE 2012 Act.”

Additionally, the bill also requires lobbyists to disclose their political expenditures in their lobbying disclosure reports in conjunction with the report of their lobbying activities.

Petitions with more than 100,000 signatures have been submitted to the White House urging the president to require federal contractors to disclose political contributions.

Last spring a leaked draft executive order requiring vendors submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose political contributions and expenditures resulted in both fervent support and opposition. A compromise amendment was inserted into the 565-page National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012, which passed in December, precluding federal agencies from requiring vendors bidding on federal contracts to disclose political contributions.

In their press release arguing for full transparency of corporate political spending, Public Citizen and MoveOn.org explained its petitions are asking for disclosures after the contracts are awarded.

For previous articles on Lobby Comply by George Ticoras on this topic, you can read posts from May 10, May 12, May 20, June 1, July 28, 2011, and January 5, 2012.

Photo of the The White House by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.