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.

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam has signed into law Senate Bill 1227, which revises the filing dates for lobbyist employer disclosure reports.

The bill requires that employer disclosure reports be filed within 45 days of June 30 and December 31.

The new law takes effect July 1, 2011, with the first employer disclosure report under the new law covering the time period from April 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 having a filing deadline of February 14, 2012.

Photo of Governor Bill Haslam courtesy of the Tennessee Governor’s website.

Assembly Bill 860 would prohibit corporations or labor unions from making contributions to a candidate for elected office. Additionally, this legislation would strengthen the state pay-to-play laws.

The bill would prohibit government contractors from making contributions to an official or candidate who is or would be elected to a position responsible for awarding a government contract to the contributor.

Finally, this bill would also prohibit any employer from using payroll deduction to fund any political activity.

Photo of the California State Capitol by Nikopoley on Wikipedia.

House Bill 3653, a bill concerning lobbyist registration fees, was brought before the House Appropriations Committee on Monday, April 18, 2011, as the bill moves closer to a vote before the full House.

The bill would provide for lobbyist registration fees of up to $1,000; however, lobbyist registration fees of up to $200 would be assessed if the lobbyist is employed by a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organization.

If passed, the bill provides for an effective date of September 1, 2011.

Photo of the Texas State Capitol by LoneStarMike on Wikipedia.

The Alaska Legislature was adjourned on its scheduled date, but not in its usual manner.

Because the House and Senate could not agree on the time of the adjournment, which is on the 90th and last day authorized by law, Governor Parnell himself invoked state constitutional authority and adjourned the 27th session of the legislature on April 17. He then immediately called a special session to begin April 18.

The special session is limited by law to a maximum of 30 days.

The Cole County Circuit Court has stayed the court’s previous judgment holding the portion of Senate Bill 844 relating to campaign finance unconstitutional.

The stay does not apply to Missouri Revised Statutes section 130.031(13), covering who may contribute to a political action committee.

The stay order allows all provisions of law, including those enacted into law by Senate Bill 844 (except for section 130.031(13)), to remain in effect until a final resolution of the case on appeal.

The Georgia General Assembly adjourned late Thursday, April 14, 2011. Among the measures passed on the final legislative day was Senate Bill 160, requiring lobbyist reporting of expenditures made on behalf or for the benefit of a public employee for the purpose of influencing a public officer. The measure will now be sent to the desk of Governor Nathan Deal for his signature.

Senate Bill 160 was amended earlier in the week to close a loophole in state ethics law made public after Advisory Opinion 2011-03, released by the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, concluded state law did not require the reporting of such expenditures.

The final semi-monthly disclosure report for state level lobbyists will be due May 1, 2011. Further, the first monthly disclosure report for state level lobbyists will be due June 5, 2011.

Photo of the Georgia State Capitol dome by Connor.carey on Wikipedia.

This ethics bill, which takes effect on July 1, 2011, prohibits members of the state legislature, elected executive branch officials, agency heads, and certain other appointed officials from acting as lobbyists for one year after leaving office.

Additionally, this legislation will require a public official who files financial disclosure statements to reveal employment information and other “business interests” of his or her spouse.

The spousal disclosures are designed to shine light on additional conflicts of interest an official may have even without a personal stake in a matter.

Photo of the West Virginia State Capitol by Garkeith on Wikipedia.

The Georgia House of Representatives voted Tuesday to close a loophole in the state ethics law concerning expenditures made on behalf or for the benefit of public employees.

The House voted to amend Senate Bill 160 to add provisions requiring lobbyist reporting of expenditures made on behalf or for the benefit of a public employee for the purpose of influencing a public officer after Advisory Opinion 2011-03, released by the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, concluded state law did not require the reporting of such expenditures.

The bill must now return to the Senate for a vote on the House amendment.

Photo of the Georgia State Capitol dome by Connor.carey on Wikipedia.

Governor Martinez has signed Senate Bill 432 prohibiting state and local government employees who are involved in the contracting process from subsequently being employed by a contractor. The bill expands the existing Governmental Conduct Act to apply to state and local government employees involved in the procurement process.

Under the new law, state agencies are barred from entering into contracts with a business represented by a person who has been an employee of the state within one year if the value of the contract is in excess of $1,000 and the contract is a direct result of an official act by the former employee. The law becomes effective July 1, 2011.

The Independent Ethics Commission released Position Statement 11-01 on Friday, April 8, 2011. In this statement, the Commission adjusted the limit on gifts to public officials and employees in the state of Colorado to $53 per calendar year, up from $50.

Pursuant to Article XXIX section 3(6), which was part of the 2006 voter-approved Amendment 41, the limit is to be adjusted based upon inflation every four years. This is the first such adjustment required.

Photo of downtown Denver by 33mhz on Wikipedia.

Under Assembly Bill 447, all committees making expenditures or receiving contributions of more than $500 would be required to file quarterly statements.

The legislation would eliminate independent expenditure reports, odd-year committee reports, and certain supplemental pre-election reports. Instead, all officers, candidates, and committees would have one pre-election report due 16 days before an election.

Late contribution reports would still be required within 24 hours of making a contribution near an election.

Photo of the California State Assembly Chamber by Lincolnite on Wikipedia.

The Secretary of State has approved a summary for a proposed ballot measure to limit campaign contributions to candidates in Missouri.

The proposal would prohibit candidates from accepting more than $5,000 per donor for each election.

The Secretary of State’s action clears the way for supporters to begin collecting the more than 91,000 signatures needed to put the question to voters in 2012.

Photo of Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan courtesy of the Secretary of State website.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green ruled that Senate Bill 844, which became effective August 28, 2010, is unconstitutional because it covers multiple subjects.   The Missouri constitution requires that bills contain only one subject.

The bill sharply restricted transfers between campaign committees, boosted the enforcement powers of the Missouri Ethics Commission, and created measures aimed at reducing situations in which candidates channeled money through several committees to obscure their source.   The court found that the procurement measures in the bill were the “original controlling purpose,” and thus should be upheld while all other measures relating to campaign finance are void.

The Missouri Attorney General’s office and the Missouri Ethics Commission are currently reviewing the decision to examine both enforcement procedures and further legal action.