The Ottawa City Council Governance Renewal Sub-Committee has directed the city clerk to refine a proposed lobbyist code of conduct.

The councillors explicitly want the differences between advocacy and lobbying to be delineated in order to exempt advocacy activities from registration. The subcommittee differentiated advocacy activities, “communications that state a position for the purpose of a general community benefit, either city-wide or local,” from lobbying activities, “communications that seek to influence a decision for the direct benefit of an individual or the group they represent.”

The clerk’s office is also directed to develop options for a definition of a community association.

Also unsure of the best manner for the city to handle lobbyist activity disclosure, an additional demand was made of the clerk’s staff to “provide a high level overview of options for disclosure, including pros and cons of disclosure by Public Officials only, disclosure by lobbyists only, and dual disclosure.”

A response to the sub-committee is during sometime in the first quarter of 2012. The Governance Renew Sub-Committee is a sub-committee of the Finance and Economic Development standing committee.

Photo of Ottawa in January by SimonP on Wikipedia.

Federal:

FEC Leaves Unclear Path for Super PACs

Gingrich’s Work Shows Limits of U.S. Lobbying Law

From the States and Municipalities:

Arizona

Clean Elections Foes Say Public Funds Are Used to Influence Election Outcomes

Colorado

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler Proposes Rewriting of State Campaign Finance Rules

Georgia

Ethics Commission Deals with Challenges of Change

Indiana

Marion County Judge Scolded for Fundraising Language

Kansas

Kansas Governor Says Staff Overreacted to Teen’s Tweet

Massachusetts

Columbus Center Developer Fined $1.6 Million

Nevada

Ethics Commission Party May Not Have Been So Ethical

New York

Second Bribe Case for Lawmaker Just Acquitted

North Carolina

Three Perdue Associates Indicted

South Carolina

S.C. Governor’s Chef Told to Reimburse State after Using Its Resources for Catering

Washington

Washington Rep. Hinkle Seeks Change to Fundraising Law

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.

State and Federal Communications President and CEO Elizabeth Bartz and seven of the company’s staff will be attending the Council on Government Ethics Laws (COGEL) 2011 Annual Conference in Nashville, Tennessee.

We are looking forward to COGEL 2011, which will run from December 4 – 7.

If you are planning to attend, be sure to say hello!

Following in the footsteps of California, the state of Maryland will be allowing political campaign contributions via text messages on mobile devices. Jared DeMarinis, Maryland State Board of Elections’ Director of Candidacy and Campaign Finance,  says this will open the process up to more people giving smaller donations.

For the full story, read “Rule would allow campaign donations by text message” by Annie Linskey in the Baltimore Sun.

According to the article: “Maryland’s General Assembly passed legislation this year authorizing campaign contributions by text message and directing the Board of Elections to implement the change. The board has drafted regulations, which are subject to public comment before they can go into effect.”

Our Highlighted Site of the Week is Gov 2.0 Radio, hosted on blogtalkradio. Produced by Adriel Hampton, Government 2.0 covers topics such as government transparency, open data, citizen engagement, social media, and much more. You can enjoy streaming the dozens of radio programs at any time.

Stay on top of the latest Gov 2.0  announcements by following them at Gov 2.0 Radio Twitter and at their Citizen 2.0 Facebook.

According to his blog, Adriel Hampton: Wired to Share, Adriel has worked as an investigator for the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office and is a journalist and gov 2.0 strategist.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) addressed two highly anticipated requests for advisory opinions yesterday.

In the first decision, the commissioners were unable to reach an agreement as to whether American Crossroads, an independent expenditure-only political committee, could produce and distribute television and radio advertisements with supported federal candidates involved in the creation of those messages. Although none of the four drafts of an advisory opinion were accepted by a majority of the six commissions, they released separate statements regarding the request. The statements can be found here:

• Commissioner Steven T. Walther;
• Vice Chair Caroline C. Hunter and Commissioners Donald F. McGahn and Matthew S. Petersen; and
• Chair Cynthia L. Bauerly and Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

In the second decision, the commission voted unanimously to deny the request of Senator Michael Lee’s Leadership PAC, Constitutional Conservatives Fund PAC. The commission concluded the PAC could not act as an independent expenditure committee, receiving contributions from corporations and unlimited contributions from individuals, because the PAC is controlled by a federal office holder, Senator Michael Lee.

They reached this conclusion even though separate accounts would be used, as recently allowed for independent expenditure committees by the FEC after the Carey v. FEC court decision and a Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment. They were also not persuaded by the fact the funds would only support candidates other than Senator Lee.

This blog post follows previous entries regarding these issues, including: American Crossroads Wants Candidate Participation in its Ads, FEC Will Not Be Enforcing Certain Laws, and One PAC Is Enough.

Newt Gingrich claims he was not lobbying after he left public office. The charge by some that he was lobbying – and Gingrich’s response – has raised issues regarding whether one can tell the difference between a lobbyist and someone engaged in non-lobbying advocacy.

Read more about it in this Reuters article, “Gingrich’s work shows limits of U.S. lobbying law” by David Ingram.

Also: “Gingrich Says He Was Acting as a Citizen, Not a Lobbyist” by Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times.

Photo of Newt Gingrich by Gage Skidmore on Wikipedia.

The Maryland State Board of Elections has launched a new campaign finance website that provides easier searches and greater transparency of campaign finance reports. The new website upgrades and further automates reporting and disclosure of campaign contributions. The new site replaces one run on outmoded software.

Previously, campaign finance reports had to be manually uploaded to the website, often delaying public disclosure until the next day. With the new site, reports are automatically uploaded and can be accessed immediately. The public now has more ways to search campaign finance documents and more comprehensive information about committees, including any violations.

The State Board of Elections will start offering training on how to use the new software on December 12, targeting current and future candidates and fundraising committees. The training will be offered on several dates around the state.

The agenda for the today’s FEC open meeting can be found here.

Thank you to Eric Brown’s Political Activity Law Blog for giving everyone this alert.

State and Federal Communications President and CEO Elizabeth Bartz is attending the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Fall Forum 2011 in Tampa, Florida.

The conference runs from November 30 until December 3, 2011.

State and Federal Communications is proud to be one of the Event Sponsors of the Women in Government Relations 2011 PACs, Politics & Grassroots Conference.

Compliance Manager Amber Fish Linke and Federal Compliance Associate Rebecca South are attending the conference today in Washington, D.C.

Q:  I want to make political contributions to a candidate for state assembly.  The limits are per election.  How do I make certain the contribution is attributed to the correct election [primary or general]?  Does it matter when I give the contribution in relation to the election?

A:  In this situation it is important to have a “meeting of the minds” between the contributor and the candidate.  The contributor’s intent should be made clear by either indicating the name of the election on the memo line of the check [e.g., 2012 Primary Election], or including a cover letter with the check, or both.  The cover letter can contain language specifically earmarking the contribution for the intended election.  Using these precautions should prevent the candidate from allocating the contribution to an election different from the one intended by the contributor, thereby resulting in a violation of the per election contribution limits.   It is not unusual for a candidate to file his pre- or post- election reports disclosing aggregate contributions from a donor in violation of the per election limit.  The candidate allocated two or more checks to one election, but the contributor intended one check for the primary and one for the general.

Furthermore, a contributor must be aware of the timing of the contribution.  For instance, in New Jersey, you only have 17 days after an election to make a contribution for that particular election; otherwise the contribution is automatically applied toward the next election, regardless of the contributor’s intent.

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.

The overhaul split the commission staff into an administrative division, an investigative division, and a compliance-education division. In addition to these changes, a change in the reporting law has resulted in hundreds of delinquencies by local officials who are filing with the state for the first time. The agency has been required to devote time and resources to contact anyone in arrears by certified mail.

Meanwhile, larger investigations have stalled. Earlier this month the commission dismissed a case filed in 2004 because the statute of limitations had expired. A more recent complaint filed against a lobbyist who failed to timely file or register and who paid for a state official’s travel to Europe is now 10 months old and delayed.

Executive Secretary Holly LaBerge is expected to hire staff auditors and receive assistance from the attorney general’s office to aid prosecutorial efforts.

Political ads are not only optimized for mobile devices, now they target their markets precisely: “Political advertisements go mobile for 2012 elections” by Emily Shultheis from Politico.

The White House’s We the People online petition project has brought surprising results – more petitions were submitted about animal rights and legalizing marijuana and fewer were about education, the economy, and foreign affairs. Read Nextgov’s “We the People draws a curious crowd” by Joseph Marks. Here is Nextgov’s summary of the results.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has received more grief than it was worth over a disparaging tweet: “Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback apologizes to teen after she refuses to apologize to him” by Melissa Bell in the Washington Post.