LobbyComply Blog

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.

The Tennessee House of Representatives struck down a bill removing the prohibition on contributions from insurance companies and raising the contribution limits for party caucuses. House Bill 643 came up just two votes shy, collecting only 48 of the needed 50 votes to pass. The bill did however receive a majority of the votes, 48-41, so the bill is not technically dead.

Currently, Tennessee law prohibits insurance companies from making a contribution for political purposes. Under the bill, insurance companies would have had the ability to make contributions and would have had the same contribution limits as multicandidate political campaign committees.

The bill also would have allowed party caucuses to contribute $500,000 for statewide races, instead of the current limit of $374,300. It also would have doubled the amount the caucuses could contribute to senate and house candidates.

The bill was not defeated on a strict party line vote, as 13 Republicans voted against and another nine Republicans did not cast votes on the bill. It remains to be seen whether the House will bring the bill up for a second vote.

Photo of the Tennessee State Capitol House Chamber by Ichabod on Wikipedia.

The United States Supreme Court has decided to hear a case challenging the aggregate federal limits for a person making contributions to candidates, party committees, and PACs. The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), is expected to be argued and decided during the Court’s next term, which begins in October, 2013.

The plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, is an Alabama businessman who regularly makes political contributions to Republican candidates and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Mr. McCutcheon wishes to contribute $26,200 more to candidates and committees than the aggregate ceiling would allow. However, he is not challenging the limits on contributions to individual candidates and entities. Mr. McCutcheon wants to give to more candidates and political entities. The RNC is also a plaintiff in the suit.

Federal law imposes two types of limits on individual political contributions, base limits and biennial limits.

Base limits restrict the amount an individual may contribute to:

• A candidate committee;
• A national party committee;
• A state, local, and district party committee; and
• A political action committee.

Biennial limits restrict the aggregate amount an individual may contribute biennially, using the 2011-2012 election cycle limits argued against in the lawsuit, as follows:

• $46,200 to candidate committees; and
• $70,800 to all other committees, of which no more than $46,200 may go to non-national party committees (e.g., state parties and PACs).

The plaintiffs are only challenging the overall limits (the biannual limits) and not the base limits.

The attorneys for McCutcheon and the RNC argue the two-year ceilings federal law sets on what an individual can contribute during a campaign are unconstitutional. Specifically, they assert the limits on contributions violate a contributor’s right to free speech; the limits for biennial contributions are too low; and the distinction between contributions and expenditures articulated in the 1976 US Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo are no longer applicable because of the changes in campaign finance laws over the last 30 years. Buckley v. Valeo allowed for government regulation of contributions to prevent political corruption and prohibited government regulation of expenditures because of First Amendment protections.

Unlike Citizens United v FEC, which concerned political expenditures, McCutcheon v. FEC addresses contribution limits. Additionally, this case does not involve the political contributions or expenditures of corporations.