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.

A former D.C. council candidate and a ward commissioner are submitting a ballot measure which would ban corporate contributions to electoral campaigns if approved by voters this November.

The summary of the initiative states that it will restore the public trust by eliminating the outsized influence corporate money has in D.C. government and elections by prohibiting direct contributions from corporations to elected officials and candidates for public office. The measure would align D.C. with federal law, which bans direct corporate contributions to public officials and candidates.

Proponents of the measure need to collect over 22,000 signatures from registered voters within six months for it to appear on the November ballot.

This quick desk reference combines information from our online resources and lists the information by state:

– The Executive Source Guide on Lobbying Laws™;
– The Executive Source Guide on Political Contributions™; and
– The Executive Source Guide on Procurement Lobbying™.

This guidebook is filled with valuable information. However, we also caution it has two limitations:

The online resources, which you receive either through your subscription or as part of your lobbying compliance service, are comprehensive. This guidebook summarizes information in the online resources, and is meant only as a quick-reference guide.

While this guidebook is accurate and timely when we print it, please understand our online resources are updated continually. We provide this guidebook to you as a convenience, but your ultimate source of information should always be the online resource(s) to which you subscribe.

We consider this guidebook another value-added benefit of your partnership with State and Federal Communications. You also receive, via e-mail, monthly updates of important compliance legislation on the federal and state levels; News You Can Use™, our weekly summary of current news and events regarding compliance; and the Compliance Now newsletter with even more information.

Please call us at (330)761-9960 or email marketing@stateandfed.com if you would like to learn more about State and Federal Communications’ compliance services. Be sure to contact us if you are already a client and need to have your subscription username or password forwarded.

We are privileged to have you as clients, and are pleased to be your trusted adviser for government affairs compliance.

The Montana Supreme Court has held the state law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate is constitutional.

Finding Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, the majority opinion of the Montana Supreme Court in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana states, “The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The Court concludes 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.”