The independent expenditure rules that were previously adopted by the New York City Campaign Finance Board were published in the City Record and have an effective date of May 16, 2012. The new rules will not be enforced for any election occurring prior to August 13, 2012.

The rules cover what type of expenditures and communications must be reported to the Board, which contributions supporting those expenditures must be reported to the Board, who must file with the Board, and when those reports have to be filed with the Board.

Our Highlighted Site of the Week is the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) new Campaign Finance Disclosure Portal. The site was announced just yesterday and offers powerful resources allowing the visitor to access campaign finance data sets and perform advanced segmentation. The types of information included are independent expenditures; bundled contributions; candidate and committee summaries; receipts, disbursements, and a cash summary for PACs and National Party committees; leadership PAC and sponsor data; and much more.

According to the FEC’s news release: “The Commission announced the release of a new campaign finance disclosure portal that will simplify access to the wide range of data available on the agency’s website. The disclosure portal provides a single point of entry to federal campaign finance data.”

Information can be accessed through interactive maps, easily readable charts, or by searching with a name or keyword. Data sets can also be downloaded as XSD, XML, or CSV files in order to perform your own analysis or data mashup.

The FEC promises the Campaign Finance Disclosure Portal will be regularly updated throughout the election cycle. With both the site and its Disclosure Data Blog, you can subscribe to its feed via RSS so that you can keep up with any updates.

Enjoy your weekend everyone!

The New York City Campaign Finance Board has voted to adopt its final rules for the disclosure of independent expenditures.

The rules require the reporting of independent expenditures by individuals, organizations, corporations, and other entities in New York City elections.

The adopted rules are available here.

The New York City Campaign Finance Board has released revised proposed rules regarding the disclosure of independent expenditures in city elections.

The revised proposed rules are available here.

The revisions include a new definition of electioneering communication, different reporting requirements, and changes to covered expenditures.

The board will accept public written comment on the rules until March 2, 2012. The final rules will be adopted at a subsequent meeting of the board.

This afternoon Rhode Island Governor Lincoln D. Chafee announced the upcoming introduction of a bill requiring those engaged in “independent expenditures” and “electioneering communications” to report donors and expenditures and to include disclaimers on media and internet advertising.

The Governor’s bill, Transparency in Political Spending Act (TIPS), was created with legislative leaders and Common Cause Rhode Island.

The Governor’s press release detailing the bill defines “independent expenditure” is an expenditure that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and is not coordinated with any candidate’s campaign, authorized candidate committee or political party committee. “Electioneering communications” is defined as print, broadcast, cable, satellite, or electronic media communications not coordinated with any candidate, authorized candidate committee or political party committee which unambiguously identifies a candidate and is made within 60 days of a general or special election or within 30 days of a primary and can be received by 5,000 or more persons in the constituency.

Governor Chafee said, “[TIPS] seeks to [make] individuals and organizations trying to influence the outcome of an election accountable to the people of Rhode Island.” The collaboratively developed legislation was announced by the Governor with Common Cause Rhode Island’s Executive Director, John Marion, and the legislation’s sponsors: House Speaker Gordon Fox, Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed, Senate President Pro Tempore Juan Pichardo, and Representative Chris Blazejewski.

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.”

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.”

The Fair Political Practices Commission has issued notice of proposed amendments to the California Code of Regulations to be considered at a public hearing on December 8, 2011. The proposed regulations codify commission guidance instructing filers to treat an in-kind contribution of the services of salaried personnel to a committee and the expenditure by the person making the salary payment as a contribution made on the payroll date of the salaried personnel.

The commission will also consider regulations which differentiate a contribution from a donation. Under the proposed regulation, a contribution is a payment made for a political purpose and includes payments to a multi-purpose organization. By contrast, a payment to a multi-purpose organization that is not made or used for a political purpose is to be treated as a donation and not a contribution for the purposes of identifying reportable contributions.

Lastly, the commission will consider amendments to the provisions pertaining to primarily formed and general purpose committees to assist filers in determining which label fits the purpose and structure of their committee.

The regulations define a general purpose committee as an ongoing committee which supports multiple candidates and measures in successive elections. General purpose committees include associations, political action committees, political party committees, major donors, as well as entities and individuals making independent expenditures.

The regulation proposes a standard for determining whether a committee is a state, county, or city general purpose committee. A committee will be considered a city or county committee if more than 70 percent of their activity is at the city or county level. Classification as a state committee will be the default.

Pursuant to the proposed regulation, a primarily formed committee is a committee formed or existing to support a single candidate or measure in a specific election. A committee will be considered primarily formed if more than 70 percent of the committee’s contributions and expenditures are for specific candidates or measures during the 24 months preceding the date where the candidate or measure is on the ballot.

Image of the Seal of California by Zscout370 on Wikipedia.

The Federal Election Commission has received an advisory opinion request asking if an independent expenditure-only PAC may use incumbent members of congress in its advertisements.

Independent expenditure PAC American Crossroads has formally requested it be allowed to produce and distribute television and radio advertisements featuring on camera footage or voice-overs of incumbent members of congress up for re-election. Conceding the purpose of the ads would be to improve the public’s perception of the congress member, the advertisements would focus on policy and legislative issues.

American Crossroads is seeking confirmation and guidance as to whether the advertisements qualify as coordinated communications, are in-kind contributions, or may limit the PAC’s ability to independently expend funds in favor of the candidate.

The advisory opinion request can be found here.

On September 8, 2011 New York City’s Campaign Finance Board proposed new rules requiring the reporting of certain independent expenditures.

The proposed reporting rules would cover expenditures that are for the design, production, or distribution of public communications, that are either express advocacy made at any time in an election cycle or an electioneering communication made within 90 days of an election, and that, when combined with all other expenditures made by the independent spender in support of or in opposition to that candidate or proposal, exceed $1,000.

Generally, in non-election years reports would be due semi-annually and in election years eight reports would be required, with expenditures required to be reported within 24 hours during the two weeks before the election.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has enjoined enforcement of a Wisconsin law that makes it illegal for anyone to give more than $10,000 in a calendar year to a political committee that makes independent expenditures in elections.

The Wisconsin Right to Life State PAC sought to halt enforcement of the contribution limit in light of the special elections to be held on August 9 and 16, 2011.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined enforcement of the Wisconsin contribution limit finding that Wisconsin Right to Life State PAC had a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its appeal, and set the case for expedited appeal.