Legends Bank is seeking to block enforcement of Missouri’s new ethics law, found in Senate Bill 844, which took effect August 28.  Legends Bank and its president filed suit Monday in Cole County Circuit Court citing language that limits the bank’s right to make political donations.  Senate Bill 844 sought to limit politicians’ ability to conceal the source of money by moving it through several political action committees.

Legends Bank claims that in determining which individuals and entities can donate to political action committees, lawmakers appear to have limited the ability of state-chartered banks to donate.   Republican Senate president pro-tem Charlie Shields, who sponsored Senate Bill 844, stated to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch the goal of the bill was never to stop banks or corporations from making political donations and that the disputed language should be fairly easy to fix.

Photo of the Missouri Capitol by RebelAt of English Wikipedia.

The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought by Colorado Ethics Watch concerning the so-called “magic words” required of political ads. Colorado Ethics Watch filed the complaint against Senate Majority Fund and Colorado Leadership Fund after the two 527 political organizations ran campaign ads supporting state legislative candidates in the 2008 election but did not register as political committees or submit independent expenditure disclosures for the ads.

An Administrative Law Judge determined, and the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed, registration and reporting were not required because the ads did not contain terms such as “vote for” or “defeat.” It is expected the case will be briefed in early 2011, with oral arguments taking place in the spring.

Seal of the State of Colorado by Svgalbertian on Wikipedia.

Governor Bob Riley has called the Alabama state legislature into special session. The lawmakers are expected to convene on December 8, 2010 and take up the issue of ethics reform.

This year, the state was plagued by a scandal in which lobbyists and local businesspeople attempted to or actually did bribe legislators to vote for pro-gambling legislation. During the upcoming session, lawmakers are expected to pass reform reducing the amount a lobbyist may spend on an official without reporting it. Additional changes suggested by the Governor include a ban on PAC-to-PAC transfers of funds and requiring those who lobby the executive branch for contracts to register.

Photo of Governor Bob Riley by MSGT MARK OWEN, USAF on Wikipedia.

Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin is pursuing the creation of a local ethics commission to replace the city’s reliance on the state. Currently, city ethics issues are resolved by South Carolina’s ethics commission. Mayor Benjamin believes reliance on a local commission with local ordinances would better serve Columbia and its city council.

The seven member commission would be made up of four residents from each of the council’s four political districts, a certified public accountant, a local business owner and an attorney. The attorney, who would serve as chairman, must not have done business with the city.

Photo of downtown Columbia by Akhenaton06 on Wikipedia.

The Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board has hired Megan Tooker as its new executive director. Tooker was unanimously selected by the six-member board and will assume the role on January 1, 2011. Before joining the agency, she graduated from Drake law school and clerked for former state supreme court Justice Michael Streit.

The outgoing director, Charlie Smithson, is stepping down from the position to become the Iowa House’s new chief clerk. Smithson had been with the board since 1998 and was originally its legal counsel. The Ethics and Campaign Disclosure board administers and advises on state lobbying, campaign and ethics laws and, to a certain extent, local ethics rules.

At the heart of the controversy is the Government Accountability Board’s (G.A.B.) rule which took effect August 1, 2010. The rule says advertisements broadcast in the weeks before an election must disclose their funding sources even if they do not expressly advocate a vote for or against a party or candidate.

Prior to the amendment, groups could evade disclosure requirements by running advertisements disguised as issue advocacy, so-called “phony issue ads”. Such ads were not considered political in nature as they did not contain what G.A.B. spokesperson Reid Magney calls the “magic words”: specific calls for viewers to vote for, elect, or approve a given candidate. The G.A.B.’s rule was meant close the “phony issue ad” loophole.

The Wisconsin legislature, for its part, permitted the G.A.B. rule to come into force on August 1, 2010. Since the rule’s effective date, however, groups across the state have claimed the rule infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech. Several lawsuits, including two in federal court, have been filed challenging the rule’s constitutionality.

The judges in both federal cases have stayed the suits filed in their courts pending a resolution in the state case. Oral arguments begin in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on March 9, 2011.

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.