Voters rejected changing Arizona’s primary election system to a top-two structure.

Proposition 121 would have allowed primary elections in which all voters, regardless of party affiliation, vote in a single and combined primary. The top two vote-getters for each seat would then have advanced to a general election ballot. The proposition would not have affected elections where no party affiliation appears on a ballot.

Voters also rejected a proposition aimed squarely at the judicial department. Proposition 115 would have increased the term length of judges and raised their retirement ages.

The proposition additionally included procedural changes, such as requiring court decisions to be published online, requiring the Supreme Court to send copies of judicial performance reviews for each judge who is up for retention to the legislature, and allowing a joint legislative committee to meet and take testimony on justices and judges up for retention.

Campaign Finance

“Outside Spending Defines Elections” by Eliza Newlin Carney in Roll Call.

California: “California’s 11th-hour, $11 million campaign finance uproar” by Alexander Burns in Politico.

California: “California watchdog only half-way to bottom of Arizona donation” by Peter Henderson (Reuters) in the Chicago Tribune.

Maine:  “Ethics Commission Rules a Republican Candidate Violated State Election Law” by The Associated Press in WABI News.

Lobbying

“2 firms unite in Capitol lobbying” by Mary Jo Pitzl in the Arizona Republic.

Ethics

“Campaigns use secretive ethics process as weapon against opponents” by Jordy Yager in The Hill.

Campaigns and Elections

“One Final Preview of the Election” by Meagan Dorsch in NCSL’s The Thicket.

“5 Unforgettable Social Media Election Moments” by Juliet Barbara in Forbes.

“How to cut through social media noise on Election Night” by Jenna Sakwa on CBS News.

A Federal District Court has held Congress may constitutionally bar federal contractors from contributing to candidates, parties, and their committees.

Finding in favor of the Federal Election Committee (FEC), the United States District Court for The District of Columbia granted a summary judgment on Friday, November 2.

In Wagner v. FEC, the Court rejected challenges to the constitutionality of section 441c of Title 2 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits any vendors with contracts with the federal government from making political contributions to federal candidates or political parties.

The case, initially brought by the ACLU, asked the Court to declare the law unconstitutional as applied to individuals who have personal services contracts with federal agencies. Because federal workers who are not contractors may make federal political contributions, while contractors performing the same work may not, the suit argued section 441c violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

The Court found no First Amendment or Equal-Protection violations, noting “the dissimilar roles of contractors and employees, moreover, justify the distinct regulatory schemes that the Government has fashioned.”

“5 social media questions 2012 will answer” by Steve Friess in Politico.

“Tweet, like, and vote: Social media in modern campaigns” by Rachel Sadon and Leah Yarnshon in TechHive.

“The Politics Of Social Media” by Krister Rollins in WCSH News.

“Social Technologies Changing How the Next Generation Votes (Infographic)” by Crystal Hutter in the Huffington Post.

Lobbying

“Start-ups aim for a more democratic lobbying system” by Jeffrey MacMillan in the Washington Post.

“More banks raise efforts on lobbying” by Carter Dougherty (Bloomberg) in NorthJersey.com.

Campaign Finance

“Former lawmakers sit on piles of cash” by Molly K. Hooper in The Hill.

Arizona: “Updated: Arizona group ordered to turn over campaign donation records” by The Associated Press in the East Valley Tribune.

Arkansas: “State senator’s campaign money went to girlfriend, records show” by John Lyon in the Arkansas News.

California: “Fight over campaign donation audit goes to California top court” by Tim Gaynor in Reuters.

Michigan: “Campaign spending in Michigan hits $175M” by Chad Livengood in the Detroit News.

Nevada: “Dollars in the Desert: Nevada State Senate Contest Rakes in Big Money” by Ben Wieder in Stateline.

Oklahoma:  “Super PACs altering Oklahoma’s political landscape” by Randy Krehbiel and Curtis Killman in the Tulsa World.

Washington: “Big names and big money define Washington state election” by The Associated Press in The Oregonian.

Ethics

“2 top Texas judges on ballot fighting ethics fines” by Jim Vertuno in the Austin American-Statesman.

Campaigns and Elections

“New Jersey to allow voting by e-mail and fax” by Ginger Gibson in Politico.

“In Legislative Elections, Majorities and Supermajorities at Stake” by Josh Goodman in Stateline.

Kyrie Eleison

Down the Road that I must travel

Kyrie Eleison

Through the darkness of the night

Kyrie Eleison

Where I’m going will you follow

Kyrie Eleison

On a highway in the night.

Wait a minute. Do you know what follows a presidential election? That’s right, all 50 states have a 2013 legislation planned session. Every one of them—Yes, Nevada, Kentucky, and Texas, too.

Are you ready for it?

This is just a reminder our website at www.stateandfed.com has all of the legislative sessions included and we update it every month because there are changes, extensions, and our favorite sine die days. Very soon you will easily see the legislative sessions for every individual state on its Home Page, which will make it easier for you to know whether a lobbying report is due and whether you can make a political contribution during the time the legislature is session.

Once again, our goal for 2013 is to make our website 100% accurate and 100% easier for our clients to use. And, you know if you have a suggestion, all you have to do is call me at 330-761-9960 and I would love to listen to it.

My name is Elizabeth Bartz…And, I approve this message.

Back to singing with Mr. Mister!

When I was young I thought of growing old

Of what my life would mean to me

Would I have followed down my chosen road

Or only wished what I could be.

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

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

December 2-5, 2012   COGEL Annual Conference 2012, Columbus, Ohio

December 3, 2012  Women in Government Relations PACs, Politics and Grassroots Taskforce Annual Conference, TBD

Republican Assemblyman Jim Tedisco is ready to play hard ball with campaign finance violators. Tedisco and two other lawmakers are hoping to introduce a “three strikes and you’re out” type of a bill for people who fail to file campaign financing reports with the state.

The possible legislation would send those who fail to file reports on three separate occasions to prison. This comes in the wake of serious scandals sweeping the state, including former state Senator Pedro Espada who was convicted of tax fraud and is awaiting sentencing. Espada owes around $30,000 in fines to the state, which the state is highly unlikely to ever see.

Tedisco says New York needs laws on the books that have teeth, so politicians are not willing to circumvent the rules. It does not seem likely for a bill of this nature to pass both houses of the general assembly, especially when the sponsor of the bill is coming from the minority party. However, Governor Andrew Cuomo is making a big push for campaign finance reforms, so an increase in penalties and enforcement is not impossible.

As Tedisco said, “Sunshine is truly the greatest disinfectant. That’s why we need to strengthen the laws to allow for full disclosure and transparency.”

Photo of Jim Tedisco courtesy of UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

Federal:

Little Girl Cries over ‘Bronco Bamma’

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama

AEA Plays Bigger Role in Politics than Teachers Unions in Most Other States, Study Finds

California

Anti-Tax Group’s Support Can Come with a Price

California

Arizona Nonprofit Must Reveal $11 Million Donor Details

District of Columbia

Inspector General Audit Details Hiring, Ethics Abuses at MWAA

Florida

Justin Lamar Sternad Invokes Fifth Amendment Right in FEC

Idaho

Idaho Nonprofit Reveals Donors after Losing Lawsuit; Bloomberg Gave $200K, Scott $250K

Maine

Senate District 25 Candidate Lachowicz Cleared by Ethics Panel

Michigan

Term Limits Launching Political Careers, Free Press Analysis Shows

Mississippi

Officials to Call for New Anti-Corruption Laws

Montana

Political Practices Reports Apparent Break-in

North Dakota

Judge Blocks ND Election Day Campaign Ban

West Virginia

WV House of Delegates Candidate Killed Because of Storm, Still on Ballot

Wisconsin

Five Wisconsin Lawmakers Settle Suit with Groups Seeking ALEC E-mails

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.

On Wednesday our office had some fun and raised money for a good cause all at the same time. On behalf of the United Way of Summit County, State and Federal Communications staff held a donut and apple cider sale. We sold dozens of donuts and ate a few ourselves.

To make things a little more interesting, we made the whole affair a Halloween costume party, which was pay-to-play, of course. For a $10 donation, we came in fancy dress – or not-so-fancy as the case may be – and as you can see Mae West, Rosie the Riveter, Paul Bunyan, and a host of Zombies, gangsters, sports fans, and assorted weirdos magically appeared.

Happy Halloween from State and Federal Communications!

An Idaho judge ordered Education Voters of Idaho (EVI), a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, to disclose the names of its contributors.

EVI contributed more than $200,000 to Parents for Education Reform, which spent the funds on television commercials in support of three school reform ballot measures, but claimed that as a 501(c)(4), it was exempt from state disclosure requirements. The judge disagreed, ruling that the disclosure requirements applied to all individuals, corporations, associations, and entities of any kind.

EVI filed its disclosure statement on October 31st, as ordered by the court, and is contemplating an appeal of the order.

With election day less than a week away, the electoral college is still perhaps the most influential and simultaneously least understood aspect of American Presidential elections. After tens of millions of votes are cast, only 270 are required to be elected President of the United States. Established under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the electoral college was later amended by both the twelfth and twentieth amendments to arrive at its current form. The idea is that states vote for the President and Vice President, and the people vote for the legislature. This method was essentially a compromise between those who wanted Congress to elect the President versus those who prefered a nationwide popular vote.

Each state is allotted a number of electors equal to the size of its congressional delegation. For example, Ohio’s 18 electoral votes equal it’s 16 members of the House of Representatives and two Senators. With a total of 538 electors (Washington D.C. is allotted three votes despite having no voting members in Congress) a majority of 270 is required to win election. Though the process varies, electors are generally selected by the political parties at statewide conventions or by each parties central committee’s. On election day, voters choose the electors by casting votes for one of the Presidential candidates on the ballot. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, all of a state’s electors are awarded to the candidate who receives the most total votes. Maine and Nebraska award electors proportionally allowing these states to award votes to more than one candidate.

The electors meet to cast votes on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December in their respective states, and send the certified results to Congress. Congress then counts the official tally in a joint session on January 6 following the year of the electors meeting. While there is no Constitutional provision or federal law that requires an elector to cast a ballot based on the popular vote of their respective states, most state and party laws require electors to adhere to popular vote pledges. Additionally, the Supreme Court has traditionally held that electors must vote consistent with the results in their states. In practice, electors generally do not go against the will of the electorate. According the National Archives, the official record keeper of Presidential elections, less than 1 percent of electoral voters have not voted in accordance with the popular vote historically.

Essentially what all of this means is that each candidate is focused on a small number of states that are likely to go either way instead of running nationwide campaigns trying to win the popular vote. Based on a number of recent maps drawn from incessant polling and statistical models, there are between 7 and 9 states still rated as toss-ups in the election (FL, CO, IA, NC, NH, NV, OH, VA, WI). Without the electoral votes offered by these states, President Obama currently has between 237 and 243 electoral votes (NV leans D in some projections) to Governor Mitt Romney’s 191 to 206 votes (NC leans R in some projections).

If there is any confusion as to which states each candidate deems vital to winning the election, look no further than each campaigns schedule over the next few days. Both President Obama and Governor Romney will present their closing arguments in each of the aforementioned swing states hoping to turn that last undecided voter before election day. And if you’re still curious, keep in mind that no republican has EVER won the Presidency without winning Ohio, so expect to see a lot of the Romney campaign in the buckeye state.

To learn more about the electoral college visit the National Archives and to build your own electoral map and lay the path to 270 for each candidate, visit 270towin.com.

From the States

“Capitols After Dark: A Haunting Prospect” by Mark Wolf in NCSL’s The Thicket.

Lobbying

“Romney Would Limit Lobbyist Roles” by Damian Paletta and Brody Mullins in The Wall Street Journal.

Campaign Finance

“Billionaires, outside groups fueled pricey campaigns” by The Associated Press in the Dallas Morning News.

“30 Issues: Why You Should Care About … Campaign Finance” by Ibby Caputo on WGBH.

California: “Limit on campaign contributions may be increasing the spending of outside groups” by Stephen Hobbs in the Richmond Confidential.

Ethics

“City Council OKs overhaul of ethics board” by Fran Speilman in the Chicago Sun Times.

Campaigns and Elections

“Romney Campaign Will Use Smartphones To Track Voter Turnout” by Sarah Lai Stirland in TechPresident.

“Why there won’t likely be an electoral vote/popular vote split — in one map” by Chris Cillizza in The Washington Posts’ The Fix.

Q. I am a registered lobbyist who was asked to make an in-kind contribution on behalf of my company for an event to be held by a state political party. Is this permissible?

A. As a registered lobbyist, your contributions may be governed by two sets of laws: campaign finance and lobbying.

First, you must determine whether the state would consider the in-kind payment to be a contribution or a lobbying expenditure.

If the in-kind payment is determined by the state’s governing body to be a contribution, then this contribution must be compliant with the campaign finance laws. You must first determine if the amount and source of funding are permissible. Assuming permissibility of the contribution, potential restrictions on contributions facilitated by lobbyists and the reportability of contributions facilitated by lobbyists will need to be reviewed. In some states, once the in-kind contribution is made, the lobbyist and the lobbyist’s principal may not have additional involvement with the planning of the event, but will be permitted to attend.

Where the state considers the in-kind payment to be a lobbying expenditure and not a political contribution, you must ensure that the expenditure will not exceed the state’s gift limit. The pro-rata share of the expenditure attributable to all public officials who attend the event may be reportable on a disclosure report.

While this analysis will vary from state to state, it is important to be cautious when making in-kind payments.

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