A new Texas Ethics Commission Rule regarding contributions to direct campaign expenditure-only committees became effective today.

Texas Ethics Commission Rule §22.5 requires a political committee intending to act exclusively as a direct campaign expenditure-only committee to file an affidavit with the Texas Ethics Commission stating the committee intends to act exclusively as a direct campaign expenditure-only committee and will not use its contributions made to it to make political contributions to any candidate for elective office, any officeholder, or any political committee making a political contribution to a candidate or officeholder.

The new rule requires the committee file the statement before it can accept a political contribution from corporations or labor organizations.

A United States Supreme Court ruling deciding the constitutionally of aggregate limits on federal campaign contributions may be issued as early as this week.

The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, seeks to allow Shaun McCutcheon to make political contributions to several federal candidates exceeding the two-year aggregate limit set in 2 U.S.C §441a(a)(3)(A). The plaintiff argues the limit is unconstitutional because it violates a citizen’s right to speak and to associate with not just any candidate, but every candidate of his choosing.

The Supreme Court decided to grant a review of the case in February 2013 and oral arguments were made on October 8, 2013.

Photo of the United States Supreme Court Building courtesy of UpStateNYer on Wikimedia Commons.

On February 13, the Texas Ethics Commission issued an advisory opinion concerning the requirements of lobbyists to disclose office holders or candidates compensating or reimbursing the lobbyist for services from political contributions.

In Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 515, the commission held that while a lobbyist must disclose in a registration the full name and address of a candidate or officeholder who uses political contributions to compensate or reimburse the lobbyist, he or she is not required to disclose compensation or reimbursement received by an entity for services rendered by someone other than the lobbyist or a person acting as an agent of the lobbyist.

Lobbyists must disclose the full name and address of a candidate or officeholder who uses political contributions to compensate or reimburse an entity that employs or hires the lobbyist to render services for the candidate or officeholder.

A lawsuit was filed in federal court this week challenging Louisiana’s $100,000 limit on contributions to political action committees (PACs).

The plaintiff in the suit is an independent expenditure-only PAC called The Fund for Louisiana’s Future. It is arguing that, because it only makes expenditures independent of any candidate, the limit violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

According to The Advocate, the PAC was created to support Sen. David Vitter’s future bid for governor or re-election bid for Senate.

Q. I am a registered lobbyist and on occasion I use my personal funds to make political contributions, as does my spouse.  Are there states that prohibit such activity?

A. A lobbyist, simply by virtue of his or her profession, may be prohibited from making personal political contributions.

There are nine states that either prohibit or limit a registered lobbyist’s ability to contribute to state candidates. In most instances, a lobbyist’s ability to contribute to political parties and ballot measure committees remains intact.

Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee impose an outright ban on lobbyists’ contributions. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, there isn’t an outright ban, but instead a monetary limit of $100 and $200, respectively. In Connecticut, the limitation extends to family members of lobbyists.

Perhaps the state most mired in “red tape” is Alaska. A lobbyist may not contribute to a candidate for office in a district outside the lobbyist’s own voting district. This prohibition continues for one year after a lobbyist’s registration or renewed registration date. A lobbyist who contributes to a legislative candidate must file a Lobbyist Report of Contributions to Legislative Candidates (Form 15-5A) within 30 days after making the contribution.

In some states, lobbyists may not contribute to state candidates or officeholders if registered to lobby the candidate’s or officeholder’s agency. Such is the case in California and South Carolina.

Finally, as a registered lobbyist you should be aware there are numerous states that impose a lobbyist ban during the legislative session. Be sure to review the relevant statutes, regulations, and guidelines.

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.

Phil Mendelson, the chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, introduced a bill that would bar people who made political contributions from obtaining contracts or doing other business with the city.

Mendelson said the motivation behind his bill was to end the perception of pay-to-play in Washington, D.C.

The new contribution limits passed earlier this year take effect today. The contribution limit for individuals, corporations, PACs, and other groups increased from $500 to $3,000 for statewide candidates, and from $500 to $1,000 for legislative candidates.

The legislation also eliminated the contribution limits for contributions to political committees.

Effective today, Nevada Senate Bill 246 revises the definition of “committee for political action” to include new threshold levels.

Entities in Nevada whose primary purpose is to affect outcomes of elections are now defined as those with more than $1,500 in contributions or expenditures in a calendar year. Entities whose primary purpose is not to affect outcomes of elections have a $5,000 calendar year threshold. Committees must register with the Nevada secretary of state no later than seven days after qualifying under the revised definition.

The changes in the bill were modeled on similar statutes previously enacted by the state of Maine.

City Council passed an ordinance creating registration and reporting requirements for organizations involved in making independent expenditures. Organizations supporting or opposing any candidate for mayor, alderperson, or municipal judge are required to register with the city clerk upon accepting contributions made for, incurring obligations for, or making independent expenditures exceeding $25 in the aggregate during a calendar year. Such organizations are also required to file reports as required by Wisconsin Statutes.

The ordinance is meant to take the place of a provision no longer enforced by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) after it reached a settlement in a suit filed by two advocacy groups. As such, the ordinance is ripe for challenge on the same grounds as the original GAB rule was challenged.

Photo of the Madison skyline by Patrick43470 on Wikimedia Commons.

A new law in Arizona raising the limits of political contributions to candidates took effect today. Individuals and noncertified political committees will now be able to give $2,000 to candidates running for legislative and statewide offices who do not participate in the state’s Citizens Clean Elections Act campaign financing system. Contributions made to candidates running for local office may be made in amounts up to $2,500. Contribution limits by committees certified by the secretary of state have also been increased.

Additionally, the new law removes aggregate contribution limitations for individuals and some political committees.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new law, which was brought by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission and others from the state, is pending in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Several members of city council announced the introduction of legislation to reform independent expenditures made in the city. The legislation would close a “loophole” in state campaign finance law allowing limited liability companies to give at the individual aggregate contribution limit of $150,000 instead of the corporate aggregate limit of $5,000. Such a change would only apply to city elections.

The legislation would also require the disclosure of the top donors to independent expenditure communications.

Finally, the legislation would force any independent expenditure communication to inform voters the communication was not subject to the city’s campaign finance laws.

Photo of the New York City Hall by Momos on Wikipedia.

The DuPage County Board repealed its pay-to-play provisions after learning from the state’s attorney’s office the provisions were unenforceable. As a non-home rule county, the county did not have the power to act on limiting campaign contributions because it was not specifically granted that power by the state legislature.

The changes were enacted as part of an otherwise minor update to the county’s ethics code. Provisions requiring disclosure of campaign contributions by contractors remain in place.

A bill requiring lobbyists to disclose work as campaign consultants passed in the Texas Legislature on May 9.

House Bill 1422 requires individuals registering as lobbyists with the state to include the full name and address of each person who compensates or reimburses the registrant, or person acting as an agent for the registrant, for services, including political consulting services, rendered by the registrant from:

• A political contribution;
• Interest received from a political contribution; or
• An asset purchased with a political contribution.

The legislation has been sent to Governor Rick Perry. If not vetoed, the bill will become law with or without his signature.

At any given time, more than 1,000 legislative bills, which can affect how you do business as a government affairs professional, are being discussed in federal, state, and local jurisdictions. These bills are summarized in the State and Federal Communications digital encyclopedias for lobbying laws, political contributions, and procurement lobbying, and can be found in the client portion of the State and Federal Communications’ website.

Summaries of major bills are also included in monthly e-mail updates sent to all clients. The chart below shows the number of bills we are tracking in regards to lobbying laws, political contributions, and procurement lobbying.