Maryland General Assembly Delegate Justin Ross will introduce legislation requiring local officials to recuse themselves from voting on building projects if a developer contributed to a shared campaign account affiliated with the official.

Presently, local leaders may vote on land use projects while indirectly receiving political contribution from these developers through accounts shared with General Assembly candidates.

In addition to the officials recusing themselves, developers would have to provide detailed information about all contributions to individual and shared accounts when they are requesting a land use decision from a council.

The enhancements to the system are aimed toward improving transparency and easing the public’s fear of “back room” politics.  It is no coincidence that the lobbying law changes come at the same time the state is strengthening ethics rules in other arenas.  The state recently passed new disclosure requirements for contacts with procurement officials.  Additionally, Illinois’ campaign finance laws will feature contribution limits in 2011 and quarterly PAC reporting.   The improvements to the state’s lobbying regulations are part of an overall climate of increasing disclosure around the United States.  Several other states, including Utah and Georgia, have made similar changes in state lobbying law this year.

The first change to the rules, which is already known by most people impacted by it, relates to the registration fee.  Illinois initially sought to increase this fee to $1,000 per lobbyist and per organization employing a lobbyist.  Thus, a company with two state-level lobbyists would have been charged $3,000 per year.   The ACLU sued for and was granted an injunction on this fee.  Essentially, the state agreed Illinois could not demonstrate the increase in cost was necessary to administer the Lobbyist Act.  Additionally, the ACLU had raised a First Amendment establishment clause argument because the bill granted exemptions to certain religious lobbying and thus “demonstrated a preference for religious speech over non-religious speech.”  Eventually, the state and the ACLU agreed to a fee of $300 and the suit was dropped.   Additionally, lobbyists are required to complete an online ethics training course within 30 days of registration.

Lobbyists will have to report more frequently in 2011 and beyond.  The lobbying dates used to be tied to whether the legislature was in session but are now semi-monthly, regardless.  In 2010, while the litigation on the Act was pending, reporting was done essentially as soon as the Secretary of State’s Index Department was able to receive them in the midst of the judicial and legislative melee.  Lobbyists filed a report on September 30 for the first half of 2010, and now must report second-half expenditures on January 15, 2011.  Starting in 2011, reports are due twice per month.  A report for the first 15 days is due on each 20^th, and a report covering the 16^th through the end of each month is due on the following 5^th.  While this is very cumbersome, it is at least consistent.  The smaller reporting periods should make the information to be reported very manageable.

One feature of Illinois’ lobbying seen in a few other states is the provision relating to notification of officials.  Previously, if an official were set to appear on a lobbyist’s report because that lobbyist made an expenditure on the official, the lobbyist was required to give the official notice of this fact 25 days before the report was due and again 30 days after the report was filed.  Under the new changes, the 30-day post-notification remains but the pre-notification is changed.  Now, lobbyists must give the official “contemporaneous written notification” of a reportable expenditure made on the official’s behalf.

Photo of Gov. Pat Quinn by Chris Eaves on Wikipedia.

Similar legislation was voted down last month. If the ordinance passes, anyone who lobbies the county board on behalf of someone else will be required to register annually and report on whose behalf he or she is lobbying. The call for lobbyist disclosure in Orange County comes after a county grand jury issued a report critical of the county supervisors for not having any lobbyist disclosure requirements. Several local political figures have implicitly threatened to have a lobbyist registration law placed on an upcoming ballot if the supervisors do not create it themselves.

Photo of Newport Center skyline and Santa Ana mountains by Brian 1078 on Wikipedia.

The Texas Ethics Commission has issued a public notice to all lobbyists registered with the commission. The commission advises all filers to install the newest lobby electronic filing software, version 2.5.3, prior to filing a lobby activities report. In Texas, lobbyists required to register with the commission may include corporations, partnerships, association or other types of business entities as well as individuals.

The new software will be available for download on the Ethics Commission website beginning December 1, 2010 at: www.ethics.state.tx.us/whatsnew/elf_info_lobby.htm

Image of the Seal of the State of Texas by Juan Vega on Wikipedia.

The United States Supreme Court will again review Arizona’s attempt to level the playing field for political candidates, agreeing to determine the constitutionality of Arizona’s law to distribute campaign subsidies to publicly funded candidates who face big-spending opponents.

In June, the Supreme Court blocked a portion of Arizona’s Clean Elections program, which authorized the state to provide “matching funds” to those candidates who face opponents spending large amounts of their own money or outside groups that target them.  The court combined two cases, Arizona Free Enterprise, et al v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett, and will hear arguments in the spring of 2011.

Picture of the U.S. Supreme Court by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

The Government Accountability Board (G.A.B.) will be open on Friday, November 26, 2010. Most other state offices will be closed for a mandatory furlough day. The G.A.B.’s next mandatory furlough day is scheduled for April 22, 2011.

Here is the Government Accountability Board’s announcement and calendar.

Western Tradition Partnership and the Montana Citizens for Right to Work have filed suit challenging several Montana campaign finance laws that impose “onerous and constitutional burdens upon (those) engaged in political speech.”  The suit seeks to exempt the two groups from campaign finance laws and further investigation by the state, but also claims the Office of Political Practices’ entire investigative process is unconstitutional.

Montana Political Practices Commissioner Dennis Unsworth ruled October 21 that Western Tradition Partnership is a political committee and had violated state law by failing to report campaign-related spending or its donors.  The groups maintained in their complaint that they engage in “issue advocacy” communication and are not subject to Montana’s political committee laws, and that the laws themselves are unconstitutionally vague.

Included in the newsletter is guidance detailing the new requirement for mayoral candidates in cities with population sizes between 40,000 and 100,000 persons to file electronically with OCPF rather than with local elections officers. Starting this coming January with the year-end report due on January 20, 2011, mayoral candidates are required to file with OCPF if they anticipate raising or spending $5,000 or more during an election cycle. During election years, mayoral candidates will file three reports with OCPFL: the pre-primary, pre-election and year end reports. In non-election years, candidates will only file a year-end report.

According to recent census figures, candidates in 23 Massachusetts cities are affected by the new requirement. The largest of these cities are Quincy, New Bedford, Fall River and Brockton. Mayoral candidates in Boston, Lowell, Worcester, Springfield, and Cambridge already file their reports with OCPF.

Other changes to state law will require Internet disclosure for all municipal candidates who raise or spend $1,000 or more during a reporting period. The paper reports for candidates for city council, selectmen, school committee candidates, and local ballot question committees will now be posted to municipal websites by local election officials. The OCPF newsletter may be found here.

Photo of Boston by Riptor3000 on Wikipedia.

Since first being filed in July, the bill has moved slowly through committees until finally being approved by the city council Finance Committee on November 10, 2011. The bill has met delays in the process, as recommendations for the bill from the Ethics Commission and Charter Revision Commission have called for separate amendments to be made. However, when a meeting was scheduled for the two committees to meet and settle their differences, no members of the Charter Revision Commission were in attendance.

One of the biggest critics of the ethics legislation has been Jim Catlett, one of the owners of a firm which has performed lobbying services on behalf of several city agencies. Catlett was also a member of the Charter Revision Commission, and even made the motion to place ethics back into the city’s charter. But Catlett is now speaking out against the legislation, arguing it would create a new level of bureaucracy for the city which is unnecessary at the present time.

Flag of Jacksonville by Ssolbergj on Wikipedia.

The state’s Public Services Commission approved new ethics rules last week by a 3-0 vote of the commissioners. These regulations prohibit a commission employee from soliciting or accepting a gift or campaign contribution from a lobbyist representing an industry regulated by the commission.

The new rules took effect immediately upon approval by the commissioners. The Public Services Commission regulates public utilities and telecommunications providers in Alabama.

Map of Alabama by JimIrwin on Wikipedia.

Ninety-nine percent of expenditures went to the Fall general election. Corporations and other organizations registered with the G.A.B., so-called 1.91 organizations, spent $2,499,494. Labor union PACs spent $1,688,880 with corporation PACs spending $1,950,524. Other committee types spent $3,791,573 for a grand total of independent expenditures for the Fall 2010 Elections of: $9,930,472.

“This is the first time corporations and organizations other than PACs have been required to report spending on political campaigns, “ said Kevin Kennedy, director and general counsel of the G.A.B. “This shows the importance of disclosure of political activity. And yet, so much more campaign spending was not required to be disclosed”.

You can read the G.A.B.’s news release here. Data on independent expenditures is available to the public in Wisconsin’s Campaign Finance Information System at: http://cfis.wi.gov.

Photo of the Wisconsin State Capitol at night by Darin ten Bruggencate on Wikipedia.

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board provided guidance on questions relating to funding of recount efforts, in light of the gubernatorial recount scheduled to begin November 29^th.

The board concluded that contributions to a recount fund made by a candidate’s principal campaign committee, a party unit, or a political committee do not require registration and reporting in accordance with Minnesota law.  The board clarified that this opinion does not allow a recount fund to accept contributions from lobbyists or lobbyist principals without further seeking an Advisory Opinion from the Board concerning the application of Minnesota’s gift law.

Map of Minnesota from the National Atlas of the United States on Wikipedia.

Citing extensively to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, King Street Patriots, with the aid of Indiana attorney James Bopp, allege Texas law governing campaign finance contributions is unconstitutional. King Street Patriots claim Texas’s general ban on corporate political contributions violate the principles established in Citizens United because it permits non-corporate groups and individuals to make political contributions, but bans corporations from making the same speech.

The claim is also advanced Texas’s ban violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments because it creates an unconstitutional content and speaker-based restriction on speech.King Street Patriots have also targeted Texas law’s reporting requirements associated with direct campaign expenditures by individuals as well as the 30 and 60-day blackout provisions banning contributions by political committees which form close to election dates.

Finally, The King Street Patriots allege Texas law unconstitutionally burdens the free speech of individuals by imposing the same reporting burdens on individuals who wish to make direct campaign contributions over $100 as are associated with political committees conducting a similar activity. The case is currently pending in Travis County District Court.

The Fair Political Practices Commission passed rules late last week to regulate electronic communications and internet advertisements in the same manner as traditional media. Campaigns and those making independent expenditures will be required to place disclaimers and disclosures in text messages, e-mail, and other electronic advertisements to the extent it is practical.

If size or character-limit constraints make the full disclosure unrealistic, the ad must at least include the candidate or committee’s FPPC number and, if possible, a link containing the full campaign finance information. These new rules include exceptions for uncompensated and other grassroots internet activity in the interest of keeping the internet a prime forum for political activity and discussion among citizens.

Image of the Seal of the State of California by Zscout370 on Wikipedia.