On November 2nd, voters approved Constitutional Amendment D by a vote of 67 percent for to 33 percent against. Amendment D establishes a five-member legislative ethics commission with the authority to conduct an independent review of complaints alleging unethical legislative behavior.

The ultimate decision whether to punish or expel a member of either the House or Senate would remain with the member’s chamber. The amendment also prohibits sitting members of the legislature or registered lobbyists from serving on the new commission.

Amendment D takes effect on January 1, 2011.

New York City voters supported, by a vote of 83 percent to 17 percent with 87 percent of precincts reporting, a referendum item which called for several changes to the city charter.  The changes include requiring disclosure of campaign contributions by independent groups and raising the maximum fine for violating conflicts of interest law.  Currently, people and organizations that spend money independently of any candidate to support or oppose political candidates or to influence votes in a referendum are not required to report those expenditures publicly.

The new voter approved law requires any individual or group that spends $1,000 or more to support or oppose a candidate or referendum to disclose the expenditure to the city’s Campaign Finance Board and include in any literature the name of any individual or organization that paid for it.  The law also requires any group spending $5,000 or more to support or oppose a candidate to disclose any organizations that made contributions to that group and any individual who contributed $1,000 or more during the 12-month period preceding the election.

Photo of the New York City Municipal Building by Momos on Wikipedia.

Under the process in place for changing these rules, the proposals will be sent to the state legislature who will either approve or override them. The approved rules become law on July 1 of each year.

The highlights of this year’s proposals include changes to bring Oklahoma law into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, and the abrogation of a rule restricting PAC contributions to ballot-measure committees. The restrictions on contributions to ballot committees have not been enforced in several years because they are unconstitutional.

Photo of the Oklahoma State Capitol copyright © Caleb Long on Wikipedia.

Montana Shrugged, a tea party group, filed suit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Billings, naming as defendants the state political practices commissioner and Attorney General Steve Bullock.  The lawsuit, filed with the help of the James Madison Center for Free Speech in Terre Haute, Ind., says Montana laws requiring financial reporting by political committees and corporations are unconstitutionally vague.

Montana Attorney General Bullock stated the lawsuit is part of a nationwide plot to torpedo state laws that require public reporting on who funds political campaigns.  The lawsuit specifically challenges Montana’s restrictions on corporate contributions after a Montana court ruling last month overturned a law barring corporate independent expenditures and upheld the state’s restrictions on corporate contributions to political candidates.

Photo of the State capitol in Helena by Monty Johnson on Wikipedia.

Now, Lt. Governor Greg Bell has informed the county parties they are not required to file. Going forward, only registered political parties will be required to file financial disclosure statements. Under state law, county parties are not required to register with the state. This new guidance runs contrary to previous statements which said all state and county parties were required to file disclosure statements.

The Salt Lake County Democratic Party has indicated it disagrees with the decision by the Lt. Governor’s office and plans to pursue the matter further. At this time, though, its legal options are unclear as the Utah Supreme Court has so far refused to hear their case. For its part, the Lt. Governor’s office plans to ask the legislature this coming January for a change in state law reflecting the new disclosure decision.

The plaintiffs, four Sarasota, Florida residents seeking to pool their monetary resources to buy radio ads against a proposed state constitutional amendment on the November ballot, wanted to avoid registration as a political action committee and disclosure requirements required of their desired radio advertisement.

“This ruling means that our clients will not be able to speak freely in the 2010 election,” said Paul Sherman, attorney for The Institute for Justice, who represented the plaintiffs.

For the complete story, here are two articles:

“Judge won’t block Fla. campaign law enforcement,” by Bill Kaczor in the Miami Herald.

“Judge refuses to throw out political-committee requirement of campaign finance law,” from the Central Florida Political Pulse blog on the Orlando Sentinel.

Photo of the Old Florida Capitol building by Diligent Terrier on Wikipedia.

After retired St. Louis businessperson Rex Sinquefield gave $13.3 million to various Missouri campaigns, The Columbia Missourian wrote an article sorting out the issues of campaign finance and disclosure in the state. The newspaper turned to Elizabeth Bartz, with her 34 years of experience in campaign finance, to put the donations in perspective.

With no limit on campaign contributions from individuals in Missouri, the article offered the following comparison by Bartz:

One expert compared Missouri to a Caribbean territory notorious for money laundering and tax evasion: “It’s like the grand Cayman Islands,” said Elizabeth Bartz, the CEO and president of an organization that provides consulting services to organizations interested in making contributions on a state level.

But Bartz also noted that the disclosure requirements in Missouri are strong:

“It’s not like they can just give and give and give and nobody can find out,” Bartz said. “It is public information, and it is information you can find out.”

You can find the text of the full story in The Columbia Missourian here.

The California Secretary of State’s office released a statement earlier this week reminding voters they are entitled to take up to two paid hours off from work in order to vote.

Secretary Bowen reminds employees they must provide two days’ notice to their employers in order to exercise this privilege.“California’s time-off-to-vote law ensures all voters, regardless of their work schedules, will be able to vote on November 2″, said Bowen.

Photo of the California Secretary of State Building by Mav on Wikipedia.

The Fair Political Practices Commission, California’s ethics and elections watchdog organization has released information on independent expenditures made in advance of the November general election.

More than 150 individuals have contributed approximately $28.8 million to independent expenditure committees in contributions of at least $10,000. The overwhelming majority of these expenditures are being made in the governor’s race.

As of June 9, 2010, committees had spent more than $23 million on communications designed to impact the election for the state’s highest executive office. The contest for state Superintendent registered a distant second with slightly less than $3 million in related independent expenditures.

Photo of the California State Capitol building by Sascha Brück on Wikipedia.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle has questioned whether the suit regarding a law which requires registration and reporting by political action committees contributing or expending in excess of $500 is “just a little too convenient,” as the suit was filed merely a month prior to the upcoming election and the plaintiffs in the action are reportedly seeking to spend $600. The judge has yet to rule on a temporary injunction on enforcement of the law, as the plaintiffs, represented by The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, ultimately seek to have the law completely thrown out.

Map of Florida from the National Atlas of the United States.

In their application, the plaintiffs, represented by James Bopp, Jr., the Indiana attorney who helped launch the landmark Citizens United v. FEC litigation, requested an order blocking portions of Maine’s campaign finance law which provides matching for candidates as well as the part of Maine law capping contributions to gubernatorial candidates at $750. By the time the plaintiff’s motion reached the high court for the second time, it had been denied three times: by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Circuit Justice for the First Circuit, by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and by the Maine District Court where the litigation originated.

The plaintiff’s last resort to enjoin the law prior to the November 2nd election was the emergency writ of injunction to the Supreme Court which was presented to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy who then referred it to the Supreme Court for consideration. The writ’s denial was not unexpected as the Supreme Court has not granted such a motion for two decades.

Photo of the Supreme Court by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

The Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission has selected Kristin Izumi-Nitao as the new Executive Director effective November 4, 2010. She has been with the Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii, since 1999, and is currently responsible for overseeing and administering the Hawaii Internet and Technology Crimes Unit which includes the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force in the state of Hawaii and the territory of Guam.

Izumi-Nitao will replace Barbara Wong who is retiring at the end of October.

New York State Inspector General Joseph Fisch has released a report that criticizes New York State leaders for failing to fulfill their public duty in the January 2010 selection of Aqueduct Entertainment Group (AEG) to operate video lottery terminals at Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens.  The 300-page report concludes that AEG should have been disqualified, and that the chaotic process resulting in AEG’s multi-billion dollar award was a “political free-for-all” marked by unfair advantages and more than $100,000 in campaign donations.

The report found that Governor Paterson, Senate Democratic Conference Leader Sampson, Senate President Pro Tempore Smith, and Assembly Speaker Silver each contributed to the multi-million dollar debacle. The report strongly recommends that the bidding process used to select AEG never be repeated and that New York State impose stringent procurement restrictions on all major contracts to ensure that they are competitive, transparent and fair.

The Inspector General’s Office is forwarding the report to United States Attorney and New York County District Attorney, for appropriate action and referring Senators Sampson and Smith to the Legislative Ethics Commission.

Map of New York by Huebi on Wikipedia.

District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock of Helena ruled Monday that the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibited corporations from making independent political expenditures, is unconstitutional. Bozeman attorney Margot Barg argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, a gun rights organization and a local painting company, that corporations are entitled to make the same sort of free political speech as individuals citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Judge Sherlock wrote that the Montana law, “insofar as it prevents corporations from making independent expenditures to support or oppose political candidates or political parties, is declared unconstitutional.”  Restrictions on corporate contributions to political candidates are not affected by the decision.  Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock plans to appeal the district court’s ruling.