City Council has passed the resident-driven Sunshine Ordinance with the intention to make city government more transparent. The ordinance requires builders to hold community meetings in connection with certain developments and calls for online posting of additional information regarding requests for proposals.

Although advocates originally proposed registration requirements for lobbyists, the new law provides only online access to city officials’ scheduled meetings with lobbyists and to information on forms already required to be filed by campaign committees and public officials.

The measure’s effective date will be November 14, 2012, 30 days from Monday’s final vote.

Photo of the Santa Ana City Hall courtesy of Eli Pousson on Wikipedia.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 41 page opinion explaining its continuing stay of a lower court’s decision ruling certain statutory contribution limits in Montana were unconstitutional and unenforceable.

On October 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

On October 9, after the District Court had denied a request to stay its Order, the Court of Appeals reinstated Montana’s campaign contribution limits, overruling the District Court. The District Court was ordered to outline the reasoning for its decision.

The next day, on October 10, the District Court issued a 38 page Opinion and Order detailing its reasoning. The Court of Appeals has rejected the District Court’s arguments, concluding “the state is likely to succeed on appeal.”

James. W. Murry, the Commissioner of Political Practices, has stated “that contribution limits are in effect and will be enforced.”

A special election is set for December 11 in the race for the Iowa State Senate District 22 seat due to very unfortunate circumstances. State Senator Pat Ward passed away from breast cancer on October 15, making the special election necessary.

Both Ward and her opponent, democratic candidate Desmund Adams, will still appear on the November 6th ballot, but the state will not count any of the votes. The Republican Party will select a candidate at a special nominating convention to run against Adams. The republicans must select a candidate by November 13.

Adams has decided to suspend his campaign to allow the district to mourn the loss of Ward.

The Seattle City Council approved a bill last night that changes the way campaign finance will work in future elections. Council Bill 117548 was approved by a 7-2 vote, but it will not take effect until after the upcoming November elections.

The new law changes the definition of election cycle, which now starts January 1 in the year prior to the general election for that office and will end April 30 following the election. Candidates will only be allowed to raise money and accept contributions during the election cycle period. The new law also limits the amount of money incumbents can carry over to the next election. The council believes that this will give challengers more of an opportunity to unseat an incumbent.

Currently, there is no limit to how much money candidates can stockpile, leading most incumbents to create massive war chests to fend off challengers. The new law does not allow any candidate to carry money over past the end of the election cycle. Current city council members have 30 days to transfer their current funds to a new campaign without being subject to the rules. Political committees are also subject to the carry-over provisions.

Finally, the new law also raises the contribution limits from $600 to $700 to candidates for mayor, city council, or city attorney.

Assembly Bill 481, recently signed by Governor Jerry Brown, is the latest amendment to the Political Reform Act of 1974. The changes are an effort to increase accountability and transparency by requiring faster disclosure of major contributions and independent expenditures occurring shortly before an election.

Definitions for late contributions and late independent expenditures have been expanded to include any aggregated contributions or expenditures of $1,000 or more made within 90 days before the date of the election. Disclosure of these late transactions is required within 24 hours of delivery. The law also requires advertisements to contain a disclosure of the two top contributors of the committee making the independent expenditure.

The Fair Political Practices Commission is currently revising the 2013 filing schedules in preparation of the January 1, 2013 effective date.

Tomorrow at a public hearing at its offices at 11:00am, the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) will consider proposed changes to the administrative code allowing for electronic filing for lobbyists’ annual reports.

Electronic filing would be mandatory through ELEC’s website and would replace the requirement to file paper copies. Copies of what a lobbyist files electronically must be retained by the lobbyist. The proposed amendments cover governmental affairs agents, represented entities, and representatives of “persons communicating with the general public.” The proposals also make technical changes, such as substituting “represented entity” for “lobbyist” throughout the relevant sections.

Other issues to be addressed at the meeting include proposed amendments concerning campaign cost index adjustments and personal financial disclosure statements by candidates.

Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacobs is calling for measures to monitor and prevent lobbyists from texting county commissioners during meetings. The county commission voted in September to delay putting a measure requiring employers to provide employees with sick time on the ballot. Three of the four commissioners who voted to delay the measure acknowledged that they were texting with lobbyists opposed to the measure during the meeting, and later deleted a number of those texts.

Mayor Jacobs released a memo stating that she ordered a system to be set up to archive text messages from county phones. She is also calling for the county to study how other governments address electronic lobbying during meetings, in consideration of a potential ban on such discussions.

Advocates for the proposed sick time ballot initiative have filed suit claiming that the county commissioners violated state public record and open meetings laws, and asking the court to set aside the vote on the measure.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Montana’s campaign contribution limits under Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216, overruling the District Court. The District Court is ordered to outline the reasoning for its decision, according to AP reports.

On October 3, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

Yesterday, the District Court had denied a request to stay its Order, according to the Independent Record. The Attorney General and the Commissioner had appealed the October 3 Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Even though the District Court has ruled some of Montana’s political contribution limits unconstitutional, the Commissioner of Political Practices wants candidates and political donors to stick to the statutory restrictions.

On October 5, Commissioner James W. Murry issued a statement “strongly recommend[ing] that candidates, political committees, and contributors abide by the contribution limitations that are provided in the statute.”

In his statement, the Commissioner said, “This office will continue to review Judge Lovell’s October 3rd Order as well as any additional orders issued by the courts to determine the current status of the laws relating to campaign contributions.”

UPDATE: Today, the Commissioner has issued an additional statement regarding the Court of Appeal’s decision: “The result of the Ninth Circuit order is that contribution limits are in effect and will be enforced.”

A federal court rejected an injunction trying to overturn Illinois’ political contribution law. Illinois Liberty PAC filed for the injunction contending the state law violated its First Amendment right to free speech. Illinois law limits the amount individuals, PACs, unions, and corporations may give to candidates each election. However, the law does not limit what political parties may contribute to a campaign.

Illinois Liberty PAC contended that if it was limited in what it could contribute, everybody should be limited. United State District Judge Gary Feinerman disagreed, holding that the injunction “would create a manifest possibility of actual or apparent corruption” and cause harm to the state’s citizens.

This ruling will not be the end of the case. Illinois Liberty PAC plans on filing an emergency motion with the appellate court in hopes of suspending the limits for the upcoming November election. Also, the courts will eventually have to rule on the constitutionality of Illinois’ contribution limits.

The Oregon Supreme Court has sided with state officials who refused to enforce a ballot measure limiting campaign contributions and spending. In 2006, voters approved Measure 47, but also rejected Measure 46, a constitutional amendment needed in order to allow the Measure 47 regulations.

Then-Secretary of State Bill Bradbury did not enforce Measure 47 based on the failure of Measure 46 and a 1997 decision by the high court finding contributions were protected under Oregon’s constitutional guarantee of free expression. Unless voters change the state constitution, or a future court decides differently, Oregon will continue to allow unlimited campaign contributions.

A Federal Court has ruled Montana’s contribution limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

On October 3, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

The Court has enjoined the state from enforcing the provisions of the code relating to limiting political contributions.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock issued the following statement: “In declaring our campaign contribution limits unconstitutional, a federal judge has effectively put Montana’s elections up for auction to the highest bidder. My office will aggressively pursue all legal remedies available to overturn this decision, including filing an emergency stay before the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals —the court which upheld Montana’s contribution limits just a decade ago.”

Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller has proposed a bill draft resolution for the 2013 legislature to increase the accountability of candidates and public officials.

Secretary Miller advocates changes to the current campaign finance laws to clarify who is required to disclose contributions and expenditures when making independent expenditures or electioneering communications. Other changes put forth include requiring reporting within 72 hours for contributions received in excess of $1000, allowing the Secretary of State’s office to seek greater authority and greater penalties for campaign finance violations, and requiring every expense made from a candidate’s campaign account to be report.

Additionally, the Secretary is proposing an overhaul of the law regarding gifts given to public officials in order to “significantly restrict the ability of candidates and public officials to receive ‘gifts’ from donors who may pose a conflict of interest”, according to a press release from the Secretary’s office.

Assemblymen Marcus Conklin and Pat Hickey, and senate candidate Sheila Leslie, have expressed interest in the ideas. The Nevada Legislature is scheduled to begin its next session on February 4, 2013.

A federal judge has issued an order to the state supreme court seeking clarification of the state’s campaign finance laws. The order arises from a suit filed against the secretary of state by the Coalition for Secular Government (CSG), alleging that certain provisions of the Fair Campaign Practices Act are invalid under the First Amendment. CSG plans to raise funds that will go toward updating and disseminating a policy paper that may address ballot issues, activities that may require it to register as an issue committee and disclose its donors under Colorado law.

The judge requested the Colorado Supreme Court to clarify:

• Whether the position paper expressly advocates for a ballot issue or question such that it falls within the definition of expenditure in the Colorado Constitution;

• If it does qualify as a ballot issue expenditure, is it eligible for the exemptions allowed for news items, editorials, and other similar writings;

• Whether the policy paper is a “written or broadcast communication” that would categorize CSG as an issue committee, and if not, did it become one when CSG posted the paper to its blog or Facebook page; and

• What the monetary threshold is that would require an issue committee to register.

With the November elections on the horizon, a number of lawsuits have been filed by potential campaign contributors seeking to determine the constitutionality of their states’ campaign finance laws. The following states have seen campaign finance laws invalidated in August.

In Nebraska, the state supreme court held the Campaign Finance Limitation Act (CFLA) unconstitutional. The CFLA allowed candidates participating in the public financing program to receive additional public funds if their privately-funded opponents exceeded certain spending limits. The court also struck down the CFLA’s aggregate contribution limits and rules governing acceptance of contributions from independent groups after the court determined the public financing portion of the CFLA was not severable from the rest of the law.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Ohio’s ban on political contributions to candidates for state attorney general or county prosecutor from doctors who treat Medicaid patients unconstitutional. The provision was designed to prevent fraud by banning contributions to those officials who prosecute Medicaid fraud, but the court held the prohibition a violation of doctors’ free speech rights.

In Florida, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of Florida’s $100 per election contribution limit for persons 17 and under, holding the law an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights. Florida allows persons aged 18 and over to contribute $500 per election.

A federal judge in West Virginia granted a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of West Virginia’s $1,000-per-election limit on contributions to independent expenditure PACs, on the grounds that the limit chills First Amendment free speech rights. The injunction will remain in place pending a final resolution of the case.

Finally, in Colorado, a federal judge invalidated several campaign finance rule changes made by the secretary of state. The rules struck down include one providing that organizations are only subject to reporting requirements if more than 30 percent of their spending was for or against a ballot issue, and one limiting penalties for certain campaign finance violations. The secretary of state’s rule defining electioneering communications was upheld. Two additional rules await a decision.