Citizens in 53 communities approved a measure on Vermont’s Town Meeting Day, coinciding with Super Tuesday, calling on the United States Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution in order to clarify that corporations do not share the same rights as natural persons possess.

The push for such a measure is a result of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Citizen’s United case.

Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont, introduced such an amendment in December and appreciated support by his constituents for his efforts, noting “Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, Town Meeting Day voters understood that corporations are not people.”

The State Integrity Investigation, a project by the Center for Public Integrity and other partners, is giving each state a grade in various areas of accountability and transparency. “Keep Government Honest” is their motto.

Lobbying is one of the categories they are measuring. The report considers a state’s definition of lobbying, its registration and reporting requirements, disclosure by lobbyist employers and principals, its citizen access to data, and the monitoring of lobbying requirements. The grades they are giving are “weak,” “fair,” or “strong”.

What is the corruption risk data for your state? It is easy to check by using this interactive map. (Some states’ grades are still being compiled.)

Take a look at “Michigan ‘weak’ in lobbying oversight,” where Peter Luke of Bridge Magazine discusses the mixed grades in Michigan’s report card.

California: “Teachers union leads in record year of lobbying lawmakers” by Patrick McGreevy in the Los Angeles Times.

Michigan: “Report: As Michigan economy floundered, spending by Michigan lobbyists soared 86%” in the Detroit Free Press.

New Jersey: “N.J. lobbyist spending hits new high at $73M; teachers union tops list again” by Matt Friedman in the Star-Ledger.

New Jersey: “N.J. Teachers Union Spent Record $11.3 Million on Ads Criticizing Christie” by Terrence Dopp in Bloomberg.

Q.  As an organization employing in-house lobbyists, what expenditures am I required to capture for inclusion in the aggregate dollar amount reported on my quarterly Federal LD-2 report?

A. There are a variety of expenditures that Federal registrants are required to track and report in an effort to provide a good faith estimate of their activity.  These expenditures include:

• Compensation, expenses and overhead associated with “registered” lobbyist employee activity.  For Federal purposes, a “registered” lobbyist is an individual who meets the statutory definition of a lobbyist and is listed by name on the LD-2 report;
• Compensation, expenses and overhead associated with any non-lobbyist employee who engaged in lobbying activity during the quarter (even though they do not meet the statutory definition of lobbyist).  Their names are not listed on the report, but the value of their activity is included;
• Dues paid to an association or membership organization during the quarter that are attributable to lobbying.  This amount is typically a percentage of the overall payments made to the membership organization and is ascertained by speaking with the outside entity directly.  Importantly, dues payments for lobbying activities should be included in the estimate for the quarter in which they are paid and cannot be apportioned over a longer period of time;
• Retainers/fees incurred during the quarter to outside consultants/firms for lobbying activities.  These fees are required to be included during the quarter in which they are incurred regardless of whether billing or payment has been made.

If we can be of assistance in helping to identify reportable expenditures, please let us know.

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.

State and Federal Communications is proud to be one of the sponsors of the Ohio Birthday Reception in Washington D.C.! The grand event will take place tonight at the Library of Congress.

Elizabeth Bartz, the company’s President and CEO, will be in attendance.

California: “Former Gov. Schwarzenegger faces fines for campaign violations” by Patrick McGreevy in the Los Angeles Times.

District of Columbia: “Raids target home and office of Gray campaign figure” by Mike DeBonis and Nikita Stewart in The Washington Post.

Photo of the Vince Gray for Mayor group courtesy of Jrrhet on Wikipedia.

“Can social media predict election outcomes?” by Jon Swartz in USA Today.

“Twitter and The Countdown To Super Tuesday” by Shea Bennett on All Twitter.

“Romney to Win Republican Nomination, Facebook Says” by Kate Knibbs in Mobiledia.

“Facebook users not talking about Rick Santorum (infographic)” by Emil Protalinski on ZDNet.

“Will Romney’s Facebook fans help win Super Tuesday?” by Athima Chansanchai on MSNBC’s Digital Life.

“Santorum’s Facebook Fans Silent Before Super Tuesday” by Jennifer Moire on All Facebook.

Federal: “Biden hires former lobbyist” by T.W. Farnam in The Washington Post.

Federal: “Abramoff says his corrupting influence reached into the media” by Jordy Yager in The Hill.

California: “Record $287M paid to Calif. lobbyists in 2010” by The Associated Press in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Georgia: “Yarbrough: Lawmakers just don’t see need for lobbying reform,” an opinion piece by Dick Yarbrough in the Athens Banner-Herald.

Michigan: “Lobbying in Capitol’s hallways is one business flourishing in Michigan” by Peter Luke in Michigan Live.

The 2013 Federal Budget proposed by President Obama would remove provisions put in the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which prohibit federal agencies from requiring the disclosure of political contributions and expenditures from vendors bidding on federal contracts.

The prohibition was inserted into the 2012 Act as a response to a draft executive order which was leaked in the spring of last year. The executive order would have required disclosure of campaign contributions and political expenditures by bidders of federal contracts.

“The White House, contrary to the intent of Congress, is apparently still trying to advance a policy that would inject politics into the federal contracting process instead of focusing on promoting competition and best value in contracting,” said U.S. Senator Susan Collins in a minority press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.

Even with the current prohibition of disclosure from bidders, some groups are urging the President to require federal contractors disclose their political contributions after the bidding process is completed and a federal contract is awarded.

A brief review of this issue can be found here.

“Campaigns, Super PACs spend $7.6 million on Michigan primary ads” by Kathleen Gray in the Detroit Free Press.

“FEC’s bad rap getting worse” by Robin Bravender in Politico.

“Super PACS Target Congressional Races” by Eliza Newlin Carney in Roll Call.

“Super Tuesday ad spending nearly tops $10 million” by Beth Fouhy in The Associated Press.

“Super PACs Fuel a Race to the Bottom” by Albert R. Hunt in the New York Times.

“The Campaign Spendageddon That Already Happened” by Adam Sorensen in TIME.

Legislators have introduced bills to remove limitations on the amount of money they can accept from PACs.  Senate Bill 3645 and companion House Bill 3281, remove the aggregate limitations on PAC donations to candidates.  The bills also remove the reporting requirements for large contributions made within 10 days of an election and remove an existing prohibition on insurance companies making campaign contributions.

Senate Speaker Pro Tempore Bo Watson, who introduced the senate bill, has stated the bill is a logical follow through to Senate Bill 1915 enacted last year that authorized direct corporate contributions to state candidates and treats corporations as if they were PACs for reporting purposes.

National:

Wealthier People More Likely To Lie or Cheat, Study Says

Federal:

K Street Democrats Warn Clients

Romney and Obama Super-PAC Backers Also Spent Big Dollars on Lobbying

Two Ads Sired Five Years Apart Spark Fight over Election Rules

From the States and Municipalities:

District of Columbia

Elections Board Backs Initiative to Ban Corporate Campaign Giving

Florida

Ethics Commission Votes to Restrict Doling Out of Free Tickets to Politicians

Florida

State Rep. Richard Steinberg Resigns over Stalker-Like Text Messages

Illinois

Relatives of Lobbyists, Campaign Donors Got Lawmakers’ Help to Enter U of I

Maine

Justices Shun Appeal of Group that Fought Maine Gay Marriage

Maryland

Baltimore Co. Public Ethics Law Falls Short of State Standards

Maryland

Garagiola’s Lobbying Work Wasn’t Included on Maryland Ethics Forms from 2001 to 2003

Montana

Judge Blocks More Montana Campaign Finance Laws

New Mexico

Lap-Dance Extortion Details Revealed

Oklahoma

Judge in Mike Morgan Trial Drops All of Case against Oklahoma Lobbyist, Part of Case against Attorney

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.

The Nebraska Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments concerning the state’s “fair fight” campaign finance law on Wednesday, March 7, 2012.

The Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission voted unanimously in August to stop enforcement of the 1992 law aimed at leveling the playing field in state political races following a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the state of Arizona where a similar law was deemed unconstitutional.

Under the law, candidates could qualify for “fair fight” money from the state if they adhered to voluntary spending limits and their opponent had exceeded such limits.

A federal court has pushed back Texas’s primary date from April 3 to May 29.

Additionally, the Texas general primary runoff election has also changed to July 31 from June 5.

A three judge panel from the US District Court for the Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, having entered redistricting plans for the 2012 elections for the US House of Representatives, the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas State Senate, found it necessary to make certain adjustments to the election schedule. The court’s order, issued March 1, stipulates various other changes of filing dates and deadlines for candidates and for voting activities concerning elections of federal, state, county, and local offices held in the state.

The court order also mandates that for the 2012 elections to the Texas House and Senate, a person must be a continuous resident of the district the person seeks to represent from April 9, 2012 until the date of the General Election.

The court’s order can be found, via the website Texas Redistricting.