The Bergen County, New Jersey Board of Chosen Freeholders issued a memorandum clarifying its pay-to-play ordinance adopted last year.

In the section of the ordinance concerning the prohibition on awarding contracts to certain contributors, the phrase “any candidate for elective office in the County of Bergen or holder of elective office in the County of Bergen” is used.

The Board’s memorandum states the phrase is limited to persons “who run for, or are elected to” county offices. The phrase does not include candidates for a municipal office held in the county, statewide candidates for the Assembly or Senate, or federal candidates whose district includes Bergen County.

More information can be found at the Corporate Political Activity Law Blog.

Federal:

Minor Senate Bill Transformed into Broad Reform Package

Records Show How Wealthy Shape Presidential Race

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama

Trial Delayed One Week; Crosby Friend Talks About His Death

Arizona

Arizona City Council Candidate Barred for English Deficit Vows Appeal

California

California Campaign Disclosure Bill Rejected by Assembly

California

Defense Buoys State Campaign of McKeon’s Wife

Colorado

Colorado GOP Lawmaker Bradford Says She Might Leave Party

Colorado

Gov. John Hickenlooper Signs Law Delaying Campaign Finance Reporting until May

Florida

Broward Heads to Court to Defend Code of Ethics

Kansas

Two Kansas Judges Contributed to Anti-Abortion PAC

Kentucky

Ethics Watchdog Richard Beliles Has Few Friends in Kentucky Capitol

Massachusetts

Boston Developer Arthur Winn Fined $100,000 for Making Illegal Campaign Contributions

Michigan

Secretary of State Ruth Johnson Paid $1,325 for Failing to File Campaign Finance Reports

New Jersey

Freeholders Nix ‘Pay-to-Play’ Rules

New York

Ethics Commission Quietly Names New Director

State and Federal Communications produces a weekly summary of national news, offering more than 80 articles per week focused on ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance.

News You Can Use is a news service provided at no charge only to clients of our online Executive Source Guides, or ALERTS™ consulting clients.

The law created new PAC reporting requirements. PACs must file quarterly reports on the 15th day of the month following the end of a calendar quarter. From July 1st of an election year until December 31st of that year, PACs must file monthly reports by the 15th day of the month following the reporting period. From October 1st of an election year until November 30th, reports must be submitted on the 15th and 30th day of each month. A final report covering transactions after the January 1st following the election must be filed 90 days after the election.

Because 2012 is an election year in Puerto Rico, the law makes provisions regarding contribution limits. A contribution of up to $2,500 may be given by a PAC to a candidate between January 1, 2012 and March 18, 2012. An additional contribution of up to $2,500 may be given to each candidate between March 19, 2012 and November 6, 2012. PACs may not give more than $12,500 in the aggregate per election in 2012.

Puerto Rico has also joined the growing list of jurisdictions with pay-to-play laws. Puerto Rico prohibits contributions while a corporation is in the process of obtaining a permit, franchise, or government contract. Once the process of obtaining the permit, franchise, or government contract is completed, a corporation may make a contribution from their PAC. At the municipal level, contributions to local candidates are prohibited if the corporation is seeking a permit, franchise, or contract with the local jurisdiction.

The Monmouth County Board of Freeholders has rescinded its three year old pay-to-play regulations.

County resolution 2012-0071 repeals resolution 08-397, which created pay-to-play and vendor disclosure rules that overlapped with the state’s law.

The Board determined the county’s pay-to-play resolution caused confusion among those seeking or performing business within the county.

Without its own ordinance, the county will now only follow New Jersey’s current pay-to-play laws.

The Fair Lawn, New Jersey Borough Council passed an amendment to close a loophole in the borough’s pay-to-play ordinance.

The amendment, to receive a final vote in December, removes the “fair and open bidding process” exception to the pay-to-play rule. The exception allows vendors to make political contributions over $300 without being barred from borough contracts.

An additional modification to the ordinance would include limiting political donations to election cycles rather than calendar years.

Map of Bergen County, New Jersey by Arkyan on Wikipedia.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie renewed calls on the Legislature to pass ethics reform. In a press release, the governor stated, “New Jersey’s ethics laws remain a patchwork of ineffective half measures and loopholes that fail to apply a uniform standard of rules of conduct for all levels of government in our state.”

Highlighting a report issued last week by the State Comptroller which emphasized the failure of the state’s pay-to-play laws, the governor reiterated the need for the changes in his proposals, which include imposing a uniform standard for awarding contracts at all levels and branches of government in New Jersey. His proposals would also end ‘wheeling,’ a practice of transferring political donations to circumvent campaign financing laws.

Governor Christie has pushed pay-to-play reform in New Jersey by linking financial Transitional Aid to municipalities with the requirement the municipalities adopt local pay-to-play ordinances.

A post about the State Comptroller report can be found here.

Today the New Jersey State Comptroller A. Matthew Boxer and the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) Executive Director Jeff Brindle called for a simpler pay-to-play system, tighter contracting rules, and more complete disclosure of contractor contributions.

Comptroller Boxer issued a report finding the state’s pay-to-play laws contain “a series of fatal flaws [that] have essentially rendered New Jersey’s Pay-to-Play law meaningless in the effort to prevent local governments from steering contracts to politically favored vendors.” Director Brindle stated, “Unfortunately, New Jersey’s political history is littered with examples of private contractors securing lucrative public contracts through targeted contributions.”

The comptroller’s report suggests several changes, such as eliminating the fair-and-open exception which has different regulatory systems at the state and local levels, strengthening fair-and-open guidelines to require more competitive contracting, and reforming New Jersey’s contract laws to allow a more competitive vendor-selection process.

Drawing on earlier recommendations from ELEC, Director Brindle also made calls for changes, including for one state pay-to-play law to apply “across the board” for all jurisdictions, emphasizing “the current maze of local and state laws is terribly confusing.” Additionally, ELEC proposes that any public contractor receiving a contract over $17,500 file an annual report with the agency, listing the contractor’s contributions and public contracts. The current disclosure threshold is $50,000. Director Brindle also stated the contribution limits for contractors should be raised to help address fundraising concerns and not discourage participation in the political process.

“Combined with competitive bidding reform as suggested by the Comptroller, together these changes would, I believe, constitute the strongest pay-to-play law in the nation,” Director Brindle said.

Comptroller Boxer’s press release is here. Director Brindle’s press release is here.

A pay-to-play ordinance has been introduced in Montclair, New Jersey.

The ordinance would prohibit business entities which have made local political contributions from contracting with the township if the contributions were made within one year immediately preceding the date of the contract or agreement and are in excess of certain thresholds. Contribution thresholds include a maximum of $300 per calendar year each for any purpose to any candidate or candidate committee for mayor or governing body, $500 per calendar year to any joint candidates committee for mayor or governing body, and $500 maximum per calendar year to any PAC. Penalties for violating the ordinance include a four ban on contracting with the township.

A business entity may cure a violation of the ordinance, if, within 30 days after the date on which the applicable ELEC report is published, the business entity notifies the municipality in writing and seeks and receives reimbursement of the contribution from the recipient of such contribution.

Public comments will be accepted at the next Township Council meeting on September 20.

The Borough Council of New Milford, New Jersey has adopted a new pay-to-play ordinance.

Ordinance #2011:17 prohibits any business entity who submits a proposal for, enters into negotiations for, or agrees to any contract or agreement with the borough, from knowingly making any contribution to local candidates, candidate committee or joint candidates committees, PACs, or to holders of public office having ultimate responsibility for the award of a contract or agreement.

Certain threshold amounts apply to this prohibition, such as a maximum of $300 per calendar year for any purpose to any candidate or candidate committee for mayor or a governing body. In order to cure any violations in excess of the limits, a reimbursement of contributions is allowed if made within 30 days. The new ordinance also applies to renewal and material modifications of existing contracts. Prior to the awarding of a contract, vendors will be required to submit sworn statements attesting to compliance with the regulations.

Vendors found in violation could face disqualification from eligibility for future contracts with the Borough for four years from the date of the violation.

Some exceptions to the new ordinance are allowed, including contracts awarded in the case of emergencies

Attorneys for the Indiana Election Division have opined that a proposed local ban on political contributions from city contractors violates state law.

The proposed Fort Wayne, Indiana ordinance prohibits companies, including subcontractors and family members, from doing business with the city if political donations were made to candidates or officials during the previous year. If a violation were not remedied by having the contributions returned, the company would be banned for three years from contracting with the city.

As quoted by The Journal Gazette, the authors of the opinion, Dale Simmons and Leslie Barnes, co-counsels at the Indiana Election Division, write “We believe the proposed ordinance unlawfully attempts to exercise the ‘power to conduct elections,’ which is a power expressly withheld from municipalities by the General Assembly. If this were not so, it would be easy to anticipate the confusion wrought in the administration of elections by numerous and conflicting local campaign finance regulations.”

Mayor Corey A. Booker has signed a new pay-to-play ordinance into law, specifically aimed at city redevelopers. The new ordinance bars redevelopers from contracting with the city if a contribution, or pledge of a contribution, over $300 has been made one year prior to the contract.

Redeveloper is defined to mean any person or entity entering into a contract with the city, or with another redeveloper, for the rehabilitation of any area in the city. The definition includes those with a 10-percent or greater ownership in the entity, partners, officers, subsidiaries, and spouses and adult children living at home.

Any group of individuals from the contracting entity cannot contribute in the aggregate in excess of $3,000. Contribution and disclosure requirements will also be required from lobbyists, professionals, and consultants working for a redeveloper if his or her work relates to the subject contract. A redeveloper who violates the ordinance is barred from future redevelopment agreements for four calendar years.

The ordinance takes effect June 2nd.

Photo of Newark at night by Jamaalcobbs at en.wikipedia.

Today at 1:30pm EDT, the hearing examining the proposed pay-to-play presidential executive order will be held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Small Business Committee.

Here is a link to the live coverage on the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform website.

The SunFoundation will be liveblogging the hearing at:  http://bit.ly/mxIbFe

You can also follow the conversations on Twitter with the hashtag #opengov.

This post is a follow-up to Tuesday’s post “Hearings Set for Anticipated Executive Order on Pay-to-Play” by George Ticoras.

On Thursday, May 12, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Small Business Committee will hold a joint hearing to examine a proposed presidential executive order requiring disclosure of political contributions by governmental contractors.

The draft proposed executive order, which was leaked to the press, would require every entity submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within the two years prior to submission of their offer. The disclosure requirement includes contributions made to federal candidates, parties, and committees, by the bidding entity, its officers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control. Contributions made to parties for independent expenditures and electioneering communications would also have to be reported. These disclosures would be required whenever the aggregate amount of the contributions and expenditures by the bidding entity exceeds $5,000.

The hearing is scheduled to examine the proposed executive order, evaluate its impact and consequences on the federal acquisition system, and determine whether it introduces politics into the procurement process.

House Bill 139, a bill aimed at limiting pay-to-play activities in the state, began moving through committees last week.

The bill seeks to limit vendors who have a state contract of greater than $25,000 from contributing in excess of $500 per election to a candidate or candidate committee for a public servant if the public servant would have authority over the contract with the vendor.

House Bill 139 is similar to a bill introduced during the prior legislative session; however, that bill was left out of a series of ethics reforms eventually approved by the legislature.

Photo of the North Carolina State Legislative Building by Jayron32 on Wikipedia.