LobbyComply Blog

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.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals determined Colorado’s voter-approved campaign reporting requirement for small groups promoting ballot initiatives to be unconstitutional. The case stems from a challenge by a group of homeowners who failed to register as an issue committee upon becoming a group of two or more persons and accepting or making contributions or expenditures in excess of $200. Six homeowners had raised and spent less than $1,000 fighting a ballot question concerning the annexation of their subdivision, Parker North, into the town of Parker, Colorado.

Plaintiff’s attorney Steve Simpson, a member of the Arlington, Virginia-based Institute for Justice, has stated this case is the first ruling in the nation wherein reporting requirements for issue committees have been linked to the First Amendment and deemed unconstitutional. Simpson also added the decision in this case signals a split with another appellate court, causing the case to be ripe for appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can read the full text of the opinion here.

Although the provisions of the bill were enacted as a new and separate chapter in the Louisiana Revised Statutes, they largely mirror the requirements of the lobbying laws already applicable to legislative and executive branch lobbying on the state level.  For example, as it is on the state level, registrations expire on December 31^st of each year and registration renewals are due on January 31^st at the latest.  Reports of local lobbying activity are due on the 25^th day of each month, as they are at the state level.  And the information required to be disclosed is largely the same.

The bill contains a provision found in the state executive branch lobbying law, but not in the legislative branch lobbying law, which allows an employer to file reports on behalf of all the lobbyists representing that employer’s interests.  An employer wishing to exercise that option must notify the board of ethics by January 31^st.

Unlike the state-level lobbying laws, the bill does not specify a registration fee for local lobbyists.

The Louisiana Board of Ethics is responsible under the bill for administering and enforcing the provisions of the bill.  This includes educational activities and seminars related to the bill, as well as the assessment of late filing fees.

State and Federal Communications will continue to monitor developments with regard to local lobbying laws in Louisiana as the bill goes into effect and is implemented by the board of ethics.

Photo of the Louisiana State Capitol by Bluepoint951 on Wikipedia.

During Director Freel’s tenure, the Commission issued ethics advice and guidance concerning Ohio’s Ethics Law to thousands of Ohio’s public officials and employees. Director Freel also supervised hundreds of investigations of Ethics Law violations at the local and state levels.

“I have truly enjoyed my work with so many Ethics Commission members and professional staff of high integrity over the years – they represent the finest ethical standard in public service for Ohio and its citizens,” said Executive Director Freel. “After 17 years as the Executive Director, I decided several weeks ago that it was time to hand over the reins to a new Director the Commission would choose.”

The Commission will discuss the search and selection process for a new executive director at its November meeting. Director Freel will step down at the end of the year.

You may read the Ethics Commission’s press release here.

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board issued Advisory Opinion 413 clarifying the state’s lobbyist registration requirements.  The Board sought to answer whether a lobbyist is required to register multiple times when employed by an entity which consists of a parent company and a number of affiliates, including subsidiaries and joint ventures controlled by or under common ownership and control of the parent company.

Several of the affiliates have legislative and administrative interests in Minnesota, and lobbying is conducted on their behalf.  The Board concluded that a lobbyist must register on behalf of each association whose interests they promote, regardless of the mechanism used to retain or direct the efforts of the lobbyists.   The opinion continued that a lobbyist who represents an association such as a trade or business association is not required to register separately for each member of the association.

Photo of the Minnesota State Capitol by Mulad on Wikipedia.