A proposed executive order requiring vendors submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose political contributions and expenditures has sparked a legislative response.

An amendment was added to HR1540, a fiscal national defense authorization bill, which passed last week, precluding an executive agency from requiring a vendor to disclose political contributions as a condition of contract participation.

Additionally, two companion bills opposing the proposed executive order were also introduced into the house and senate. SB1100 and HR2008, titled “Keeping Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011”, explicitly prohibit an executive agency from requiring submission of political information, and prohibit an agency from using political information as a factor in consideration of whether to award a contract. The bills’ definition of political information means information relating to political spending, including contributions, independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

Previously, a congressional hearing was also held concerning the proposed executive order.

Photo of the United States Capitol with the flag by Florian Hirzinger on Wikipedia.

Governor Brian Schweitzer has appointed Dave Gallik to serve as Montana’s Commissioner of Political Practices.

Gallik previously worked as Staff Attorney for the Montana State Insurance Commissioner and served for several years in the Montana House of Representatives.

The Commissioner of Political Practices is appointed to serve one six-year term and requires Senate confirmation.

Photo of the Montana State Capitol courtesy of Galaksiafervojo on Wikipedia.

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley has signed a bill that guarantees future funding for the Alabama Ethics Commission.

The new law appropriates one tenth of one percent of the state’s general fund budget to the ethics commission. Under the current proposed budget, this appropriation represents approximately $1.8 million dollars.

The appropriation provision in the new law can only be modified by a two-thirds vote of the Alabama House and Senate.

Members of the Miami-Dade Ethics Commission will have 39 applicants to choose from when replacing current Executive Director Robert Meyers, who is resigning his position after 12 years with the commission.

Included in the 39 applicants, among other professions, are two retired former Miami-Dade prosecutors, a former assistant attorney general, an assistant public defender, and a former daytime television judge.

The commission is expected to narrow the list of candidates at their upcoming meeting on May 26, 2011. After narrowing the list, interviews of the finalists will take place and a new executive director is expected to be named during the summer.

The three reissued executive orders include a ban on political contributions to the mayor from the owners of companies that do business with the city, an order requiring city employees to comply with hiring oversight rules, and an order reaffirming that it is the duty of every city employee to report wrongdoing to the inspector general.

The first new executive order prohibits new appointees from lobbying city government for two years after leaving the administration, bars lower level employees from lobbying the departments or agencies in which they work, and bars appointees to boards and commissions from lobbying the board or commission on which they sit.

The second new executive order protects city employees from being pressured to give gifts or make political contributions to their superiors.

The third new executive order prohibits city lobbyists from making political contributions to the mayor.

Jennifer Hensley, who has held the position of Commissioner of Political Practices since her nomination in January of 2011, was refused confirmation by the Senate.  The Senate Judiciary Committee held a brief confirmation hearing on Hensley’s nomination, but never voted on her nomination before adjournment of the legislative session.

Governor Schweitzer asked the top four Republican and Democratic legislative leaders to send him a list of nominees for the position by May 11.  The Governor may choose a nominee from the list or make an independent appointment to serve out the remainder of Hensley’s six-year term.

According to a Politico article by John Bresnahan: “Daniel Schwager, a lawyer on the Senate Ethics Committee, was approved by the House panel in a bipartisan vote Monday to take over the super-sensitive post, which had been vacant since January.”

You can read Roll Call’s coverage of the news by Emma Dumain here. Jordy Yager writes here in the Hill’s Blog Briefing Room.

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ethics has a press release from May 2.

Photo of the U.S. Capitol Rotunda by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

The Georgia General Assembly adjourned late Thursday, April 14, 2011. Among the measures passed on the final legislative day was Senate Bill 160, requiring lobbyist reporting of expenditures made on behalf or for the benefit of a public employee for the purpose of influencing a public officer. The measure will now be sent to the desk of Governor Nathan Deal for his signature.

Senate Bill 160 was amended earlier in the week to close a loophole in state ethics law made public after Advisory Opinion 2011-03, released by the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, concluded state law did not require the reporting of such expenditures.

The final semi-monthly disclosure report for state level lobbyists will be due May 1, 2011. Further, the first monthly disclosure report for state level lobbyists will be due June 5, 2011.

Photo of the Georgia State Capitol dome by Connor.carey on Wikipedia.

This ethics bill, which takes effect on July 1, 2011, prohibits members of the state legislature, elected executive branch officials, agency heads, and certain other appointed officials from acting as lobbyists for one year after leaving office.

Additionally, this legislation will require a public official who files financial disclosure statements to reveal employment information and other “business interests” of his or her spouse.

The spousal disclosures are designed to shine light on additional conflicts of interest an official may have even without a personal stake in a matter.

Photo of the West Virginia State Capitol by Garkeith on Wikipedia.

The Georgia House of Representatives voted Tuesday to close a loophole in the state ethics law concerning expenditures made on behalf or for the benefit of public employees.

The House voted to amend Senate Bill 160 to add provisions requiring lobbyist reporting of expenditures made on behalf or for the benefit of a public employee for the purpose of influencing a public officer after Advisory Opinion 2011-03, released by the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, concluded state law did not require the reporting of such expenditures.

The bill must now return to the Senate for a vote on the House amendment.

Photo of the Georgia State Capitol dome by Connor.carey on Wikipedia.

Governor Martinez has signed Senate Bill 432 prohibiting state and local government employees who are involved in the contracting process from subsequently being employed by a contractor. The bill expands the existing Governmental Conduct Act to apply to state and local government employees involved in the procurement process.

Under the new law, state agencies are barred from entering into contracts with a business represented by a person who has been an employee of the state within one year if the value of the contract is in excess of $1,000 and the contract is a direct result of an official act by the former employee. The law becomes effective July 1, 2011.

The Independent Ethics Commission released Position Statement 11-01 on Friday, April 8, 2011. In this statement, the Commission adjusted the limit on gifts to public officials and employees in the state of Colorado to $53 per calendar year, up from $50.

Pursuant to Article XXIX section 3(6), which was part of the 2006 voter-approved Amendment 41, the limit is to be adjusted based upon inflation every four years. This is the first such adjustment required.

Photo of downtown Denver by 33mhz on Wikipedia.

The rule prohibits investment advisers from providing investment advisory services for compensation to a government entity within two years after a contribution to an official of that government entity is made, either by the investment adviser or by any covered associate of the investment adviser.  This prohibition does not apply to contributions made by a covered associate to officials for whom the covered associate was entitled to vote at the time of the contributions if the contributions did not exceed $350 in the aggregate to any one official, per election.  The prohibitions also do not apply to contributions made by a covered associate to officials for whom the covered associate was not entitled to vote at the time of the contributions if the contributions did not exceed $150 in the aggregate to any one official, per election.

An additional prohibition prevents an investment adviser from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any person to solicit a government entity for investment advisory services unless that person is a regulated person or is an executive officer, general partner, managing member, or employee of the investment adviser.  Nor may such advisers coordinate or solicit any person or political action committee to make a contribution to an official of a government entity to which the adviser is providing or seeking to provide investment advisory services or payment to a political party of a state or locality where the investment adviser is providing or seeking to provide investment advisory services to a government entity.

The rule has two important compliance dates.  The March 14, 2011 date applied to investment advisers subject to the rule.  The other compliance date, September 13, 2011, is when investment advisers will no longer be able to use third parties to solicit government business except in compliance with this rule.  Additionally, advisers to registered investment pools have until the September 13 date to comply with this rule.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green ruled that Senate Bill 844, which became effective August 28, 2010, is unconstitutional because it covers multiple subjects.   The Missouri constitution requires that bills contain only one subject.

The bill sharply restricted transfers between campaign committees, boosted the enforcement powers of the Missouri Ethics Commission, and created measures aimed at reducing situations in which candidates channeled money through several committees to obscure their source.   The court found that the procurement measures in the bill were the “original controlling purpose,” and thus should be upheld while all other measures relating to campaign finance are void.

The Missouri Attorney General’s office and the Missouri Ethics Commission are currently reviewing the decision to examine both enforcement procedures and further legal action.