Amol Naik from Google, Elizabeth Bartz of State and Federal Communications, Ken Gross from Skadden Arps, and Michael Toner from Wiley Rein will be making up the Compliance Dream Team.

Bring your compliance concerns. This is your opportunity to unleash all those difficult questions regarding compliance issues.

Don’t miss the Public Affairs Council National PAC Conference. See you there!

“Super-PAC craze sweeps the nation” by Rachel Leven in The Hill.

“Feds Add Charge to Former Detroit Mayor Corruption Case” by The Associated Press on Governing.

“Chicago most corrupt city, report shows” by MJ Lee on Politico.

“Group fighting campaign finance laws in 3 courts ask federal judge to undo contribution limits” by Matt Gouras (Associated Press) in The Republic.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has made legislative proposals to enhance the state’s ethic rules.

In advance of the start of the legislative session next month, the Governor has staked out the areas of Louisiana’s ethic system he believes need the most attention, including making the process of appealing late filing fees unambiguous.

Among his other proposals are making a clearer distinction between the duties and jurisdictions of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board and the Board of Ethics, granting the Board of Ethics some ability to appeal Ethics Adjudicatory Board decisions, and clearly articulating which board is being referenced when a statute merely refers to a ‘board’.

The proposals, included in a press release from the Governor, also include a call for the Ethics Board to suspend the one year dismissal rule in certain circumstances during an investigation of a possible ethics violation.

Photo of the Louisiana State Capitol by Bluepoint951 on Wikipedia.

Arizona: “Ariz. lawmakers want elected officials to disclose use of public funds” by Howard Fischer in the East Valley Tribune.

Georgia: “Advocates push for ethics funding” by Charles Edwards on WABE News.

“Watchdog groups demand more money for ethics board” by in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Maryland: “Maryland Ethics Panel Suggests Reducing Local Disclosure” by Brian Witte (Associated Press) on NBC Washington.

“Bill would require online disclosure” by Michael Dresser in the Baltimore Sun.

Minnesota: “Lobbying violations vex understaffed Minnesota regulator” by Brad Schrade in the Star Tribune.

North Carolina: “Dome: Few ethics complaints probed, report shows” by John Frank in The News & Observer.

Democratic legislators have submitted a bill for introduction that restricts the activity of special interest organizations that write bills for legislators.

The bill titled the ALEC Accountability Act applies existing lobbying laws to any organization or person who advocates for the introduction of model legislation. The bill also requires the reporting of any “scholarships” organizations pay to legislators and prohibits state taxpayer funds from being used to pay for attendance at the organization’s conventions.

The bill is currently awaiting a bill number and committee referral.

Photo of the Wisconsin State Capitol building by Darin ten Bruggencate onWikipedia.

The state Supreme Court has struck down much of the 2010 ethics law passed by state lawmakers. Senate Bill 844 changed campaign finance laws, gave greater authority to the Missouri Ethics Commission, created new crimes for ethics violations, and required Capitol dome keys be given to all lawmakers.

The court said Tuesday the bill violated a requirement of the state Constitution that legislation not be amended to change its original purpose. The procurement portion will remain in effect because the Supreme Court concluded that was the original purpose of the legislation.

The decision upholds Circuit Judge Daniel Green’s ruling last spring.

Personal PAC, an abortion rights group, has filed a lawsuit seeking to strike down the limit on the amount of money given by donors to PACs.

Presently, the limit is set at $10,000 per election cycle.

Personal PAC is seeking an immediate and permanent injunction which would allow donors to make unlimited contributions to PACs.

Lobbying

“Lobbyists sue Obama administration after being booted from boards” by Rachel Leven and Kevin Bogardus in The Hill.

Campaign Finance

Alaska: “House rejects last-minute Senate exemption of current politicians from campaign finance law” by Austin Baird (Associated Press) in The Republic.

“Super PACs echo parodies” by Kenneth Vogel in Politico.

“Bragging about bundling days over” by Anna Palmer in Politico.

Ethics

California: “California’s political watchdog panel eases its approach to ethics issues” by Patrick McGreevy in The Los Angeles Times.

Louisiana: “Gov. Bobby Jindal seeks adjustments in ethics rules” in the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

Government Transparency

“Iowa’s government websites score poorly, transparency group says” by Jason Clayworth in the Des Moines Register.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Arizona: “Arizona submits congressional map to US for review” by The Associated Press in the Arizona Capitol Times.

Colorado: “Political insiders in Colorado organized nonprofits to fund redistricting efforts” by Lois Beckett in the Denver Post.

Florida: “Redistricting maps will spur big changes in Central Florida” by Aaron Deslatte in The Orlando Sentinel.

Missouri: “Missouri Supreme Court to consider redistricting fight” by The Associated Press in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

New York: “Campaigns on hold awaiting remap” by Bob McCarthy in the Buffalo News.

Pennsylvania: “With Pa. redistricting plans up in the air, candidates use 2001 maps” by Jennifer Fitch in the The Herald-Mail.

Texas: “In Fight Over Redistricting Maps, Sometimes It’s Where They Play the Game” by Ross Ramsey in The New York Times.

Wyoming: “Wyoming redistricting expected to be contentious” by Joan Barron in the Casper Star-Tribune.

Federal:

Ethics Reform Bill to Ban Insider Trading by Congress Members, Executive Branch by House

Obama Yields in Marshaling of Super PAC

From the States and Municipalities:

Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court Bars Candidate with Limited English

California

High-Speed Rail Tapped State Fund for Unusual Lobbying Contract

Connecticut

For Donovan, Lobbyist Bucks Seep Through Loophole

Georgia

With House Bill Stalled, Senator Targets Lobbyist Gifts

Michigan

Critics Worry Senate Ad Will Revive Asian-Bashing

Montana

Schweitzer Appoints Former Labor Leader to Head Political Ethics Office

Oklahoma

FBI Created Fake Company during Investigation of Oklahoma Legislature

Texas

New Rules Would Target ‘Bundlers’ Who Raise Big Sums for Austin Races

West Virginia

W.Va. Lawmakers Navigate Lobby Ban, Social Media

Wisconsin

Wisconsin GOP Leader Admits He’s Packing Heat in State Assembly
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.

A Montana Supreme Court’s decision upholding the state’s law prohibiting independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate, in spite of Citizens United v. FEC, has been appealed to the US Supreme Court.

According to the SCOTUSblog, Justice Kennedy has called for a response from the state of Montana by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, February 15.

For a detailed explanation of the appeal, see Lyle Denniston’s article on SCOTUSblog at http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/new-citizens-united-sequel-2.

In December of last year, the Montana Supreme Court found Citizens United v. FEC did not compel invalidating the state’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act.

In the Court’s majority opinion in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana, the Court wrote, “The corporate power that can be exerted with unlimited political spending is still a vital interest to the people of Montana.”

The Court concluded the state, because of its history and the history of the Act, has a compelling interest to impose statutory restrictions, emphasizing the Citizens United decision allows restrictions to be upheld if the government demonstrates a sufficiently strong interest.

In making its argument, the decision asserts that a “material factual distinction between the present case and Citizens United is the extent of the regulatory burden imposed by the challenged law.” The Court found in contrast to the “complexity and ambiguity” of restrictions for federal PACs, PACs formed and maintained in the state are “easily implemented” by the filing of “simple and straight-forward forms or reports.”

Attorney James Bopp, Jr., counsel of record for the petitioner, argues for the US Supreme Court to summarily reverse the Montana decision, writing, “The lower court’s refusal to follow Citizens United is such an obvious, blatant disregard of its duty to follow this Court’s decisions that summary reversal is proper.”

• Find out which state ethics commissions offer ethics training and what they are like in Natalie O’Donnell Wood’s brief, “Making the Most of Your Ethical Training” in the latest edition of LEGISBRIEF.

• NCSL is hosting this webinar: Putting Election Laws to the Test on Monday, February 13 at 2:00 PM ET.

Their site describes the session in this way: “This webinar will discuss the various election reforms being debated in legislatures, including whether to require citizens to show ID to register or to vote, whether to allow online and Election Day registrations, and how best to modernize aging voting machines.”

WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN:  County Executive Robert Ficano has issued a new executive ethics policy that contains lobbyist registration provisions, gift restrictions, and conflict of interest disclosure requirements for executive appointees.

The policy requires a lobbyist who lobbies any executive appointee to register with the State of Michigan and bars lobbyists not verified as registered from meeting with executive appointees.

Additionally, the policy prohibits lobbyists from providing executive appointees with food or beverage valued at more than $100 annually and prohibits all other monetary or non-monetary gifts or gratuities.

U.S. Congressman Chris Van Hollen has introduced a campaign finance bill in the House called DISCLOSE 2012 Act.

Like the similarly entitled bill introduced and defeated in 2010, House Resolution 4010, the Disclosure of Information on Spending on Campaigns Leads to Open and Secure Elections Act of 2012, aims to increase the reporting requirements of political expenditures and contributions by corporations and other outside groups.

Corporations, unions, and other groups, will be required to report certain campaign-related activity to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), to disclose their campaign-related expenditures to their shareholders and members, and to make their political spending available to the public, through a hyper-link to the FEC, on their websites.

In his press release, Congressman Van Hollen states, “I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation – if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from the DISCLOSE 2012 Act.”

Additionally, the bill also requires lobbyists to disclose their political expenditures in their lobbying disclosure reports in conjunction with the report of their lobbying activities.