Campaign Finance

“Big donors give far and wide, influencing out-of-state races and issues” in NBC News.

“Prosecutors face off over suspect campaign activity” by Jeremy Duda in the Arizona Capitol Times.

“Connecticut firm at center of new ‘Citizens United’ controversy” by Michael Beckel in the CTMirror.org.

“Boutique PACs making big splash in surprise races” by Susan Davis in the Indianapolis Star.

Ethics

“Congressional ethics committees protect legislators, critics say” by Scott Higham in the Washington Post.

“Congress members back legislation that could benefit themselves, relatives” by Kimberly Kindy, David S. Fallis and Scott Higham in the Washington Post.

Florida: “Ethics commission ‘wish list’ waiting for Legislature” by Matt Dixon in the St. Augustine Record.

Campaigns and Elections

“Voter Data: What the Candidates Know About You” by Elana Varon in Mashable.

“Campaigns Use Social Media to Lure Younger Voters” by Jenna Wortham in The New York Times.

A federal court rejected an injunction trying to overturn Illinois’ political contribution law. Illinois Liberty PAC filed for the injunction contending the state law violated its First Amendment right to free speech. Illinois law limits the amount individuals, PACs, unions, and corporations may give to candidates each election. However, the law does not limit what political parties may contribute to a campaign.

Illinois Liberty PAC contended that if it was limited in what it could contribute, everybody should be limited. United State District Judge Gary Feinerman disagreed, holding that the injunction “would create a manifest possibility of actual or apparent corruption” and cause harm to the state’s citizens.

This ruling will not be the end of the case. Illinois Liberty PAC plans on filing an emergency motion with the appellate court in hopes of suspending the limits for the upcoming November election. Also, the courts will eventually have to rule on the constitutionality of Illinois’ contribution limits.

Campaign Finance

California: “Crosby, Stills, Nash and Morello rage against Prop. 32” by Michael J. Mishak in the Los Angeles Times.

Montana:  “Montana appeals ruling as campaigns eye unlimited donations” by Mike Dennison in the Billings Gazette.

“James Bopp Jr. Gets Creative” by Jon Campbell in Slate.

Lobbying

Florida: “Butterworth skirts state lobbying laws with Broward contract” by Mary Ellen Klas in the Miami Herald.

Ethics

“Todd Akin Flubs Another Financial Disclosure, Amends 10 Years of Forms” by Neils Lesniewski in Roll Call.

Illinois: “Illinois powerbroker Cellini is sentenced to a year in prison” by Annie Sweeney in the Morris Daily Herald.

Pennsylvania: “Ex-LCB chairman Stapleton resigns amid ethics probe” by Angela Couloumbis in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

South Carolina: “Ethics Commission Owed $2 Million Plus in Fines” by Shawn Drury in the St. Andrews Patch.

Government Tech and Social Media

“Digital Campaigning: Meet the Marketing Wizards of D.C.” by Matt Petronzio in Mashable.

“Are Digital States Graduating with Honors, or in Detention?” by Kristy Fifelski in GovTech.

Photo of the U.S. Capitol by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

The Oregon Supreme Court has sided with state officials who refused to enforce a ballot measure limiting campaign contributions and spending. In 2006, voters approved Measure 47, but also rejected Measure 46, a constitutional amendment needed in order to allow the Measure 47 regulations.

Then-Secretary of State Bill Bradbury did not enforce Measure 47 based on the failure of Measure 46 and a 1997 decision by the high court finding contributions were protected under Oregon’s constitutional guarantee of free expression. Unless voters change the state constitution, or a future court decides differently, Oregon will continue to allow unlimited campaign contributions.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will not be creating any new regulations to address contribution disclosure requirements connected to electioneering communications, at least on its own accord.

Yesterday, the Commission was unable to achieve the requisite four votes needed to initiate rulingmaking in response to a federal court order. In Center for Individual Freedom v. Van Hollen, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the FEC, under the jurisdiction of the District Court, to decide whether the Commission would pursue rulemaking addressing the issues raised concerning 11 C.F.R. §104.20(c)(9) or defend its current regulation in court.

Currently, 11 C.F.R. §104.20(c)(9) requires disclosure only of those making contributions over $1,000 to an entity explicitly for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications. The lawsuit argues the current rule contradicts the statute requiring disclosure of all donors making contributions over $1,000.

The FEC counsel has filed a status report advising the District Court that the Commission “does not intend to pursue a rulemaking and that it will continue to defend 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9) before the Court.”

Separate statements have been issued by Commissioners Ellen L. Weintraub, Cynthia L. Bauerly, and Steven T. Walther .

National:

Selling Votes is Common Type of Election Fraud

Federal:

For Election Losers, Many Paths through the Political Wilderness

Medical Research Funding Tied to Advocacy, Study Finds

From the States and Municipalities:

Arkansas

Americans for Prosperity Puts Big Money on Legislative Races in Arkansas

Illinois

Emanuel Replaces Ethics Board

Maine

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Appeal by Anti-Gay Marriage in Maine Case

Massachusetts

Native Americans Chafe at Brown-Warren Race

Minnesota

Campaign Finance Board Rules Minnesota Majority’s Dan McGrath Did Not Break Lobbying Rules

Montana

Judge Tosses Montana Campaign Finance Limits

Nevada

Nevada Secretary of State Seeks More Campaign Disclosure, Restrictions in Aurora Act

Oregon

Oregon Supreme Court Refuses to Limit Campaign Spending

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Shouldn’t Be Enforced This Time, Judge Rules

Rhode Island

Ethics Commission Sets Hearing on Disclosure of Paid Trips for Officials

State and Federal Communications produces a weekly summary of national news, offering more than 80 articles per week focused on ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance.

News You Can Use is a news service provided at no charge only to clients of our online Executive Source Guides, or ALERTS™ consulting clients.

Campaign Finance

“Campaign Fundraisers in D.C. Continue Despite Recess” by Kate Ackley in Roll Call.

New York: “Campaign finance reform uncertain” by Jimmy Vielkind in the Albany Times Union.

Lobbying

“US Rep. Frank: No paid lobbying after Congress” by The Associated Press in the Boston Globe.

Ethics

“SC lawmakers vow ethics reform” by Andrew Shain in The State.

Campaigns and Elections

“5 takeaways from the Denver debate” by Maggie Haberman in Politico.

A Federal Court has ruled Montana’s contribution limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

On October 3, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, issuing a decision in Lair v. Murry, found the contribution limits in Montana Code Annotated §13-37-216 “prevent candidates from ‘amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.’”

The Court has enjoined the state from enforcing the provisions of the code relating to limiting political contributions.

Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock issued the following statement: “In declaring our campaign contribution limits unconstitutional, a federal judge has effectively put Montana’s elections up for auction to the highest bidder. My office will aggressively pursue all legal remedies available to overturn this decision, including filing an emergency stay before the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals —the court which upheld Montana’s contribution limits just a decade ago.”

October 11, 2012   WASRG Summit, Washington, D.C.

November 17-20, 2012   SGAC Leaders’ Policy Conference, Santa Monica, California

November 28-30, 2012   ALEC States and Nation Policy Summit, Washington, D.C.

Q. I am interested in making contributions to state candidates in the upcoming elections. Does the fact that I’m a registered lobbyist affect my ability to contribute?

A. In certain states, being a registered lobbyist does impact your ability to give to a political candidate, ranging from a total ban on political activity, to simply having to report the contributions on your periodic reports.

In Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, lobbyists may not make contributions to lawmakers while the state legislature is in session. Fortunately, in the context of the upcoming elections, most states have adjourned sine die. In California, a lobbyist may not make a contribution to a candidate for any office for which the person is registered to lobby. Because most lobbyists are registered to communicate with the legislature, this ends up being nearly a total ban on contributions to legislators. Similarly, in Kentucky, a lobbyist registered with the legislative branch may not make a contribution to a lawmaker. In Alaska, a lobbyist is only allowed to contribute to candidates for office within his or her voting district.

There are several states in which lobbyists are allowed to make contributions, but must disclose the donations on their lobbyist reports. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Washington are examples.

Some states have unique provisions for politically-active lobbyists. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a lobbyist who makes political contributions must register and report in the same manner as PACs. Minnesota lobbyists must include their registration numbers in the memo section of campaign contribution checks.

If you or a member of your team would like to make a campaign contribution in a state in which you are registered, please contact a member of the State and Federal Communications Compliance Department for fact-specific guidance.

(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.

Campaign Finance

“Freshmen rake in cash through PACs” by Kevin Bogardus and Megan R. Wilson in The Hill.

Connecticut: “When a candidate’s spouse is powerful, the goal of a campaign donation can be … complicated” by Ana Radelot in the CT Mirror.

Minnesota: “Campaign finance board rules Minnesota Majority’s Dan McGrath did not break lobbying rules” by Paul Demko in Politics in Minnesota.

New York: “NY progressives push for public campaign finances” by Michael Gormley in Bloomberg News.

New York: “Campaign finance firepower gathers” by Jimmy Vielkind in the Capitol Confidential.

Lobbying

“Activists Press Corporations to Cut Ties With Presidential Debate Commission” by Janie Lorber in Roll Call.

“Wis. lawmakers sued over emails with conservative group” by The Associated Press in the Chicago Tribune.

Ethics

California: “L.A. Councilman Richard Alarcon and wife ordered to stand trial” by Catherine Saillant in the Los Angeles Times.

Illinois: “Emanuel Revamps City Hall Ethics Board” by Hal Dardick in the Chicago Tribune.

Campaigns and elections

“Obama, on track to raise $1 billion, came close to that in 2008”  by Matea Gold in the Los Angeles Times.

“Jim Lehrer on criticism of his recurring debate-moderator role: ‘It’s a rough, rough world’” by Andrew Beaujon in Poynter.org.

“Daily Ad Track” by Abby Livingston in Roll Call.

“Zac Efron, Leonardo DiCaprio and Selena Gomez all want you to vote for stuff” by Jen Chaney in the Washington Post.

Government Tech and Social Media

“For the Campaigns, Online Debate Response is All About Mobile” by Nick Judd in TechPresident.

“Social media: On the outside looking in at presidential debates” in Politics in Minnesota.

“Code for America Reveals 2013 Partner Cities and Counties” by Sarah Rich in Government Technology.

Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller has proposed a bill draft resolution for the 2013 legislature to increase the accountability of candidates and public officials.

Secretary Miller advocates changes to the current campaign finance laws to clarify who is required to disclose contributions and expenditures when making independent expenditures or electioneering communications. Other changes put forth include requiring reporting within 72 hours for contributions received in excess of $1000, allowing the Secretary of State’s office to seek greater authority and greater penalties for campaign finance violations, and requiring every expense made from a candidate’s campaign account to be report.

Additionally, the Secretary is proposing an overhaul of the law regarding gifts given to public officials in order to “significantly restrict the ability of candidates and public officials to receive ‘gifts’ from donors who may pose a conflict of interest”, according to a press release from the Secretary’s office.

Assemblymen Marcus Conklin and Pat Hickey, and senate candidate Sheila Leslie, have expressed interest in the ideas. The Nevada Legislature is scheduled to begin its next session on February 4, 2013.

A federal judge has issued an order to the state supreme court seeking clarification of the state’s campaign finance laws. The order arises from a suit filed against the secretary of state by the Coalition for Secular Government (CSG), alleging that certain provisions of the Fair Campaign Practices Act are invalid under the First Amendment. CSG plans to raise funds that will go toward updating and disseminating a policy paper that may address ballot issues, activities that may require it to register as an issue committee and disclose its donors under Colorado law.

The judge requested the Colorado Supreme Court to clarify:

• Whether the position paper expressly advocates for a ballot issue or question such that it falls within the definition of expenditure in the Colorado Constitution;

• If it does qualify as a ballot issue expenditure, is it eligible for the exemptions allowed for news items, editorials, and other similar writings;

• Whether the policy paper is a “written or broadcast communication” that would categorize CSG as an issue committee, and if not, did it become one when CSG posted the paper to its blog or Facebook page; and

• What the monetary threshold is that would require an issue committee to register.

With the November elections on the horizon, a number of lawsuits have been filed by potential campaign contributors seeking to determine the constitutionality of their states’ campaign finance laws. The following states have seen campaign finance laws invalidated in August.

In Nebraska, the state supreme court held the Campaign Finance Limitation Act (CFLA) unconstitutional. The CFLA allowed candidates participating in the public financing program to receive additional public funds if their privately-funded opponents exceeded certain spending limits. The court also struck down the CFLA’s aggregate contribution limits and rules governing acceptance of contributions from independent groups after the court determined the public financing portion of the CFLA was not severable from the rest of the law.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Ohio’s ban on political contributions to candidates for state attorney general or county prosecutor from doctors who treat Medicaid patients unconstitutional. The provision was designed to prevent fraud by banning contributions to those officials who prosecute Medicaid fraud, but the court held the prohibition a violation of doctors’ free speech rights.

In Florida, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of Florida’s $100 per election contribution limit for persons 17 and under, holding the law an unconstitutional infringement on free speech rights. Florida allows persons aged 18 and over to contribute $500 per election.

A federal judge in West Virginia granted a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of West Virginia’s $1,000-per-election limit on contributions to independent expenditure PACs, on the grounds that the limit chills First Amendment free speech rights. The injunction will remain in place pending a final resolution of the case.

Finally, in Colorado, a federal judge invalidated several campaign finance rule changes made by the secretary of state. The rules struck down include one providing that organizations are only subject to reporting requirements if more than 30 percent of their spending was for or against a ballot issue, and one limiting penalties for certain campaign finance violations. The secretary of state’s rule defining electioneering communications was upheld. Two additional rules await a decision.