Ballot Measure 1 was touted as a way to increase transparency in lobbying and end “pay to play” politics. The measure was strongly and publicly opposed by unions, local governments, and business groups who were concerned the measure would have quieted the voice of many Alaskans in the political arena.

For further reading:

“Ballot Measure 1 soundly rejected,” by Lisa Demer in the Anchorage Daily News.

“Ballot Measure 1 rejected by wide margin,” by Ted Land on KTUU.com.

State officials must report tangible gifts of more than $250 per year from any source and transportation, lodging, and hospitality worth more than $650. Lobbyists were the most generous with legislators who have power to direct and control funding. For instance, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Jake Corman received a $4,000 Super Bowl trip from a Pittsburgh law firm whose lobbyists represent a variety of clients, including utility companies, hospitals, wine and beer distributors, and banks.

Those who provide the gifts and travel are not necessarily trying to buy support for particular legislation, but they are buying lawmakers’ time according to one Harrisburg lobbyist, who asked not to be named. He said he frequently takes lawmakers to dinner but does not give tangible gifts. He said most often, gifts come from lobbyists whose interests already are in sync with the lawmaker’s policy positions.

Executive Secretary Stacey Kalberman has pointed to a lack of resources available to the commission to provide the required oversight. Budget cuts have delayed technology upgrades despite an anticipated 1,000% increase in filings when the law takes effect in January, 2011. Further, the commission employed three investigators and three auditors a few years ago, but currently employs just one auditor and no investigators.

Kalberman has stated that the commission presently relies primarily on the press and outside sources to bring ethics violations to their attention.

For further reading here is an article in the Florida Times-Union: “Georgia Ethics Commission Aces Overload,” by Walter C. Jones.

And an article from GPB News: “Agency Doesn’t Have Funds to Enforce Ethics Law,” by Melissa Stiers.

Here is the State Ethics Commission Web site and the summary of upcoming 2011 changes to ethics law.

Anyone running for election to the boards of California’s two pension funds will have to disclose their campaign contributions, according to a bill that just passed the California Assembly.

The bill now heads to the senate.

According to the Associated Press:

“Under the bill, candidates would have to disclose any contribution of $5,000 or more within 10 days of receiving it and any contribution of $1,000 or more within 24 hours during the period immediately before an election.”

Here is the Associated Press source article by Cathy Bussewitz: “Disclosure considered for California pension boards”

Photo of the CalPERS headquarters by Coolcaesar on Wikipedia.

The suit filed by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) alleged Maine’s laws governing political action committee definitions, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The plaintiffs also raised a First Amendment challenge alleging Maine’s regulations imposed excessive burdens which would only serve to chill its political speech.

Judge Hornby did agree with some of the plaintiff’s allegations and proceeded to strike down Maine’s rules requiring 24-hour disclosure of independent expenditures over $250 as “impermissibly burdensome”. As well, state law’s use of the words “influence” and “influence in any way” were struck down as being unconstitutionally vague.

Judge Hornby went on to uphold the bulk of Maine’s campaign finance laws concluding:

“Otherwise, Maine’s laws governing PACs, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements are constitutional, and survive NOM’s challenges they are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and they impose excessive burdens that chill NOM’s speech preceding this fall’s elections and thereafter.”

The plaintiffs are expected to pursue an expedited appeal to the U.S. First Circuit located in Boston.

The New York Commission on Public Integrity has published Notices of Proposed Rulemaking in the New York State Register to add Title 19 NYCRR Parts 933 and 934. Part 933 governs gift restrictions for state officers and employees, while part 934 governs lobbyists and their clients.

A period for comment is available until September 25, 2010. Those wishing to submit comments may e-mail them to kburgess@nyintegrity.org. Further, those wishing to view the proposed rules can find them at www.nyintegrity.org/law/regulations.html.

According to public filings, more than 130 registered lobbyists gave contributions toward 2010 campaigns. Republicans, who control the House and Senate, received about $190,000, while Democrats got almost $155,000. Another $13,000 went to nonpartisan judicial candidates.

Five statewide candidates each have received more than $20,000 in contributions from registered lobbyists, with Lt. Gov. Jari Askins leading the way at more than $36,000. Askins won a narrow victory over Attorney General Drew Edmonds in the Democratic primary for governor. Edmondson received more than $28,000 from registered lobbyists. The contributions from lobbyists, however, are a small share of overall fundraising for those candidates; the Askins and Edmondson campaigns have each raised more than $2 million.

The amendment would increase the amounts an individual may contribute to a ward council candidate from $100 to $200 and at-large council and mayoral candidates from $300 to $450. The proposed amendment would also remove campaign finance language currently in the city charter.

If approved, council would have to replace the campaign finance charter provisions with an ordinance within three months time. Finally, council would be required to review campaign finance issues on a biennial basis with provisions made for public hearings as part of the review process.

Akron voters will vote on the proposed campaign finance charter amendment November 2nd.

The Illinois Secretary of State has mailed invoices for the revised lobbyist registration fee.

According to the Index Department, the invoices were sent on August 10, 2010 and the $300 fee is due on September 9, 2010. This invoice must accompany the payment.

The Connecticut House of Representatives voted to override Governor M. Jodi Rell’s veto of the bill designed to reinstate the public election financing program, which had been previously limited by a federal court decision. The state senate had already voted to override the veto.

The immediate effect of the vote is to provide gubernatorial candidate Dan Malloy with six million dollars from the Citizens’ Election Program, twice as much as he was originally scheduled to receive.

Until now, those interested in finding out how much candidates for regional office had raised and where the money came from had to take a trip to the registrar’s office, pour through paper records, and pay photocopying fees.

Assistant Registrar Michael Vu says the county has earmarked $100,000 for a contract to put the information online. The Registrar plans to have the first batch of disclosures on the site in October.

You can read more about the San Diego County Registrar of Voters at their Web site.

Rule 4.4 continues to bar judicial candidates from personally receiving or soliciting campaign contributions, but, under the revisions announced Wednesday, two new exceptions are available to judicial candidates. First, a judicial candidate may make a general request for campaign contributions when speaking to an audience of twenty or more persons. Second, a judicial candidate may sign letters soliciting campaign contributions if the letters are for distribution by the judicial candidate’s campaign committee and the letters direct contributions are to be sent to the campaign committee and not the judicial candidate.

The Justices voted 4-1 to amend Rule 4.4 with Justice Paul Pfeifer voting no and Chief Justice Eric Brown and Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger not participating as both are on the ballot this November. The Supreme Court’s move took place in response to a U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which struck down similar rules for judicial candidates in Kentucky.

Here is the text from the announcement on the Ohio Supreme Court Web site:

The amended solicitation rule continues to bar judicial candidates from personally soliciting or receiving campaign contributions, but establishes two new exceptions to the personal solicitation ban. … Those exceptions are:

• “A judicial candidate may make a general request for campaign contributions when speaking to an audience of twenty or more individuals;”
• “A judicial candidate may sign letters soliciting campaign contributions if the letters are for distribution by the judicial candidate’s campaign committee and the letters direct contributions to be sent to the campaign committee and not to the judicial candidate.”

The amendments to Rule 4.4 became effective on August 12, 2010.

Photo of the Ohio Judicial Center.

Per the terms of a settlement reached Tuesday, the G.A.B. will not enforce regulations requiring groups who run issue ads to disclose their financing if the ads they paid for aired 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Now, only advertisements advocating the defeat or election of identified candidates will be regulated in Wisconsin.

U.S. District Judge William M. Conley is expected to approve the settlement ending the litigation on August 11, 2010.

Here is the statement from the G.A.B. Web site.

You can read the Wisconsin Department of Justice stipulation letter to Judge Conley, and the Stipulation and Proposed Order.

For more news: “State agrees to drop new campaign ad rules,” by Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Photograph taken by Dori

A contentious meeting of the Broward County Commission has resulted in a new code of ethics law for the county. The new law bars county commissioners and family members from accepting lobbyist gifts. It also establishes a new Office of Inspector General.

For more coverage of this breaking news:

“Broward Ethics Reform Passes After Shouting Match,” by Carey Codd at CBS 4.

“Gnashing of teeth, tongue-lashing, and ethics reform,” by Brittany Wallman in the South Florida Sun Sentinel.