The number of municipalities and regional governments our research associates track continues to grow. We now cover almost 300 municipalities and local governments. This is part of a continuous effort to better serve the needs of our clients.

In that effort, we have recently added abridged jurisdictions to our website. These entries, condensed due to the limited number of relevant local laws, provide the core information our clients need for their government relations work.

The new jurisdiction is: Yuma, Arizona.

City Clerk Toni Taber was given a reprieve by City Council following a review of the clerk’s job performance during a closed-door meeting on September 1. She had been facing dismissal.

The review was triggered by faulty advice provided by the clerk’s office to City Council and mayoral candidates during the 2014 local elections. The clerk’s office had instructed the candidates to follow state law when reporting late contributions. However, local law has stricter reporting standards.

This lack of information resulted in thousands of dollars in campaign contributions being improperly reported over the past two years and one councilman being fined $10,000 for improper filing.

While Taber was granted a second chance, her office still faces an audit and may have several of its key functions transferred to other city departments.

On September 2, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) requested approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for amendments to MSRB Rule G-20, a conflict-of-interest rule concerning gifts and gratuities. The proposed amendments include limiting gifts to $100 for municipal advisors giving gifts to employees of entities engaged in municipal securities activities. The new rules for municipal advisors also would prohibit receiving reimbursement of entertainment expenses from the proceeds of an offering of municipal securities.

“Amending the MSRB’s existing gifts rule would ensure common standards for dealers and municipal advisors that all operate in the municipal securities market,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly in a press release.

On September 23, Austin, Texas City Council Member Leslie Pool intends to present a new lobbying ordinance to the Audit and Finance Committee.

On Monday, the Ethics Review Commission was asked by Pool to set up a public hearing before the September 23 date. “Council members can start raising money in May [2016], so that’s why we’re trying to keep this moving forward,” Pool said, according to the Austin Monitor.

Commission Chair Austin Kaplan told the Austin Monitor the ordinance would subsequently be addressed by the full Ethics Review Commission at its September 28 meeting. Proposed changes to the city’s lobbying law include increasing the registration fee from $300 to $350 a year for those earning at least $2,000 per quarter and eliminating the exception to register when an individual claims communications are incidental to other employment not for the purpose of lobbying.

Photo of Austin, Texas skyline by Erik A. Ellison on Wikimedia Commons.

Lobbying

Oregon: “Portland Auditor Says Steve Novick, Charlie Hales Violated Lobbying Rule on Uber Meeting” by Andrew Theen for Portland Oregonian

Texas: “Ethics Commission Begins to Examine Proposed Lobbying Changes” by Jack Craver for Austin Monitor

Campaign Finance

California: “San Jose City Clerk Given Second Chance Following Closed-Session Review” by Ramona Giwargis for San Jose Mercury News

New Mexico: “New Push for Campaign Finance Reforms” by Dan Boyd for Albuquerque Journal

Wisconsin: “Elections Board Sends Questions about Lobbyists’ Presidential Contributions to Legislature” by Todd Richmond (Associated Press) for Minneapolis Star Tribune

Ethics

“FBI Raids Palm Springs City Hall in Corruption Probe” by Jesse Marx and Kia Farhang (Palm Springs Desert Sun) for USA Today

Wisconsin: “GAB Head Told Former Employee to Tone down Comments” by Patrick Marley for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Elections

“How Social Media Is Ruining Politics” by Nicholas Carr for Politico

The Missouri Ethics Commission recently found a group of lobbyists improperly reported food and drink expenditures made during a 2014 American Legislative Exchange Council State Night dinner. The lobbyists reported the entire General Assembly as the recipient for the total cost of the dinner, though not every member of the Legislature received an invitation to the event.

Such expenditures were required to be reported on behalf of each public official rather than as a group expenditure. The punishment simply requires each lobbyist to amend his or her filing and cite the specific legislators in attendance at the dinner.

Some feel the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, as lobbyists may continue to hide individual gifts under the guise of a group event as long as the entire group receives an invitation.

Lobbying

“Hillary Clinton Sides with Liberals on Anti-Lobbying Bill” by Sam Frizell for Time

Missouri: “Ethics Commission Rules Dinner Violated Law, Issues No Fines” by Rudi Keller for Columbia Tribune

Missouri: “Missouri Lawmakers Ranked by How Many Lobbyist Gifts They Received” by Jason Hancock for Kansas City Star

Campaign Finance

South Carolina: “Bobby Harrell Ordered to Pay $113,475 Used for Legal Fees” by Andrew Shain for The State

Ethics

Illinois: “Chicago Sues Red Light Camera Firm for $300 Million” by David Kidwell for Chicago Tribune

Michigan: “House Report Accuses Michigan Reps. Courser, Gamrat of ‘Deceptive, Deceitful’ Misconduct” by Jonathan Oosting for Mlive.com

Pennsylvania: “Ex-Liquor Board Official Was Living Top-Shelf Life” by The Associated Press for Philadelphia Inquirer

Virginia: “McDonnell Can Remain Free While Supreme Court Decides on Review” by Robert Barnes and Matt Zapotosky for Washington Post

Elections

“Donald Trump and the Decline of the White Voter” by Janelle Ross for Washington Post

Enjoy these fun photos from the 2015 NCSL Legislative Forum in Seattle, Washington!

Q. I would like to contribute to political candidates in my state, but my company is a state vendor. Are there laws prohibiting me from making personal contributions?

A. Whether an employee of a state vendor may contribute to political candidates varies widely based on jurisdiction. The answer may depend on the employee’s role in his or her company, as well as the position held by the candidate receiving the contribution.

Ohio, for example, prohibits a partner, shareholder, administrator, executor, or trustee of a state vendor from making personal contributions exceeding $1,000 to the public official with ultimate responsibility for awarding a contract during the contribution blackout period if the contract is not competitively bid. In this instance, the prohibition depends both on the title of the employee, as well as the position of the public officer receiving the contribution.

Other states prohibit contributions for contracts in certain industries. Florida prohibits individuals or firms providing legal or financial advisory assistance to the Division of Bond Finance of the State Board of Administration from making contributions to any candidate for governor or for a Cabinet position in Florida, during the contribution blackout period.

Connecticut goes so far as to prohibit certain state vendor employees from contributing to candidates, even if the employees are located out of state. For example, employees of a state vendor with the title of treasurer or executive vice president may not contribute to restricted Connecticut candidates, even if they work in another state for their company. Spouses and dependent children over age 18 of restricted employees are also prohibited from contributing.

Each jurisdiction structures its pay-to-play restrictions differently. Be sure to review the campaign finance law for the state in which you plan to contribute to determine if there are restrictions on state vendor employees or their family members.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: experts@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.

Many of you are working on your 2016 budgets, and I would suggest a few of the Public Affairs Council conferences be included to help with your government relations work.

If you have some funds left for 2015, attend the State and Local Government Relations conference from September 23-25 at the Hilton Old Town in Alexandria, Virginia. This is the absolute best 101 program to learn about state and local government relations. We have used this as a stepping-stone to all first-year staff to learn more about the subject.

The premiere conferences offered by the Council are in 2016—National Grassroots Conference, January 25-28 in Orlando, and the National PAC Conference in Miami from March 7-10. Yes, it is winter, and yes, they are in Florida. However, set that aside and think about the sessions where discussions are held about:

1. Case studies involving grassroots programs;
2. Branding your grassroots program;
3. Educating the members of your grassroots or PAC programs;
4. Ethics, Gift Rules, and Legal Guidance (my favorite session);
5. Engaging Senior Executives;
6. Operating a Successful PAC;
7. Communicating Across Generations;
8. Hosting a Candidate Fundraiser;
9. Auditing and Assessing Your PAC; and
10. Setting a Course for Your Professional Development.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I serve on the PAC Board of Directors (but there are 160 of us, so no one really notices me) and I am on the Advisory Committee for both of the 2016 conferences…But, that should show my commitment to the Council and how much I treasure and value its contributions to the public affairs industry.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. I would be happy to discuss the value and importance.

Until next month, remember professional development is something you should always push for to help you with your career.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Z. Bartz

President and CEO

On August 31, in a column on the Huffingtonpost.com, Hillary Clinton announced her support for a bill to limit the revolving door between the financial sector and the federal government.

In the post, Clinton and Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the sponsor of the bill, specifically emphasized the bill would prohibit private sector employers from offering bonuses to employees when they leave to join the government.

House Resolution 3065, the Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act, also increases the prohibition on lobbying the federal government from one to two years, expands the definition of lobbying contact to include any lobbying activities and strategy, and requires senior financial service regulators to recuse themselves from any official actions directly or substantially benefiting the former employers or clients for whom they worked in the previous two years before joining federal service. The press release for the bill can be found here.

Photo of Hillary Clinton by Hillary for Iowa on Wikimedia Commons.

On August 28, state Rep. Rick Glazier resigned from his seat in the General Assembly to take a job with the North Carolina Justice Center.

He had planned to wait until the end of the session, but had to step down earlier because the session has lasted longer than expected.

Democrats in the 44^th District will meet to choose his replacement.

Lobbying

“Lobbying Firm Fined for Disclosure Violations” by Dave Levinthal for Center for Public Integrity

Maryland: “Maryland Receives ‘B’ Grade on Lobbying Disclosure” by Wiley Hayes for Carroll County Times

North Carolina: “Influence of Lobbyists Makes Them Practically a ‘Third House’ of Legislature” by Mark Binker for WRAL

Oregon: “Lobbying Spending Is Up. Where does the money go?” by Gordon Friedman for Salem Statesman Journal

Campaign Finance

New Mexico: “Complaint: A story of casinos, campaign money and crime” by Milan Simonich, Steve Terrell, and Staci Matlock for Santa Fe New Mexican

Ethics

Colorado: “Denver Officials’ Gift Disclosures Require Little Detail about Giving” by Jon Murray for Denver Post

Indiana: “Who’s Paying Pence’s Travel Tab?” by Chelsea Schneider and Tony Cook for Indianapolis Star

Maryland: “State Ethics Board Examining Martin O’Malley’s Purchase of Mansion Furniture” by Doug Donovan for Baltimore Sun

Vermont: “Pollina Calls for Stringent Ethics Rules” by Anne Galloway for VTDigger.org

Campaign Finance

“Hillary Clinton Reaches Deal with Democratic Party on Fundraising” by Nicholas Confessore for New York Times

California: “L.A. Wants More Details about Business Groups That Donate to City Campaigns” by Emily Alpert Reyes for Los Angeles Times

Connecticut: “GOP Strategist George Gallo Sentenced To Year in Prison in Political Kickback Scheme” by Edmund Mahoney for Hartford Courant

Ethics

“Ethics Battle Still Brewing Over Azerbaijan Travel” by Hannah Hess for Roll Call

Arizona: “Top Arizona Utility Regulator Faces Conflict Complaints” by Ryan Randazzo for Arizona Republic

Colorado: “Denver Ethics Board Floats Reforms Aimed at Boosting Public Confidence” by Jon Murray for Denver Post

Pennsylvania: “Bethlehem Mayor Issues Policy That Bans Gifts” by Nicole Radzievich for Allentown Morning Call

Procurement

“Business Leaders Mount Effort to Beat Back Contractor ‘Blacklisting’ Rule” by Lydia Wheeler for The Hill

Elections

“Since President Obama Took Office, 85 of 98 State Legislative Bodies Got More Republican” by Philip Bump for Washington Post