“Twitter, Facebook now tools for Big Brother” by David Saleh Rauf in Politico.

“Blending Governance and Twitter” by Chrystia Freeland in The New York Times.

“Social media as election predictor? Not so fast” by Puja Murgai on Politico.

“A Road Map Emerges for State Digital Preservation” by Noelle Knell in Government Technology.

“Louisville government rated among top 10 social media cities” by Thomas McAdam in the Louisville City Hall Examiner.

This articles talks about the trend toward tagging objects in the physical world in order to track it all with the internet and mobile devices: “Internet of Things Comes to Government” from Government Technology.

How does your state measure up in providing high speed internet access? “States Race to Improve Broadband Speeds” by Mike Maciag in Government Technology.

The State Department held a social media contest where the participants were given the task of finding fake jewel thieves. MIT’s Team Crowdscanner was the winner: “MIT team thinks outside the box to snag social media prize” by Andrew Lapin in Nextgov.

Here is a Govloop discussion “What Are Your Tech Needs for Teleworking?” posted by Pat Fiorenza.

We are the leading authority and exclusive information source on legislation and regulations surrounding campaign finance and political contributions; state, federal, and municipal lobbying; and procurement lobbying.

Contact us to learn how conveniently our services will allow you to say “I Comply” for your compliance activities.

Be sure to visit stateandfed.com and if you have any questions, you can contact us at 330-761-9960, or info@stateandfed.com.

1797-1801   John Adams*

1825-1829   John Quincy Adams*

1837-1841   Martin Van Buren*

1841-1841   William Henry Harrison

1841-1845   John Tyler**

1845-1849   James Polk

1849-1850   Zachary Taylor

1850-1853   Millard Fillmore**

1853-1857   Franklin Pierce

1857-1861   James Buchanan

1865-1869   Andrew Johnson

1877-1881   Rutherford Hayes

1881-1881   James Garfield

1881-1885   Chester A. Arthur

1885-1889   Grover Cleveland ****

1889-1893   Benjamin Harrison*

1909-1913   William Taft*

1921-1923   Warren Harding

1929-1933   Herbert Hoover*

1961-1963   John Kennedy

1974-1977   Gerald Ford**

1977-1981   Jimmy Carter*

1989-1993   George H.W. Bush*

2016-2020   Donald J. Trump*****

2020-2024   Joseph R. Biden***

* Ran for re-election unsuccessfully

** John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur and Gerald Ford were never elected President.

*** Pulled out of the 2024 November General Election and his VP Kamala Harris ran in his place.

**** Ran for re-election unsuccessfully – 1889.  Then ran successfully in 1897.

*****  Ran for re-election unsuccessfully – 2020 .  Then ran successfully in 2024.

Updated:  November 6, 2024

The 2010 ethics law increased disclosure requirements for lobbyists, banned campaign committee-to-campaign committee transfers, and gave greater investigative powers to the Missouri Ethics Commission. The court affirmed a circuit court decision holding all provisions of Senate Bill 844, except those relating to procurement, to be in violation of article III, section 21 of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits changes in the original purpose of a bill. Senate Bill 844 violated this provision by being introduced as an act relating to contracts for purchasing but being passed as an act relating to ethical administration.

Reaction to the decision has been swift and urgent. On January 14, 2012, the same day the opinion was released, the Missouri Ethics Commission stated in a press release that the court’s decision “deals a blow to the Commission’s ability to enforce and administer the law.” Several lawmakers and Governor Jay Nixon quickly called for bills to reinstate the voided provisions. Representative Jason Kander sponsored a bill (House Bill 1756) filed the day after the decision that would reinstate the voided provisions.

Prior to the decision, Kander also sponsored a bill (House Bill 1080) that would go beyond Senate Bill 844 to prohibit gifts from lobbyists and limit campaign contributions. Senate Bills 546 and 825 propose contribution limits. Senate Bill 826, filed by Senator Crowell, would reenact the voided provisions of Senate Bill 844. Currently, Missouri does not have any campaign contribution limits and is the only state to allow lawmakers to receive both unlimited campaign contributions and unlimited gifts from registered lobbyists.

Not all of Missouri’s lawmakers are ready for change. House Majority Leader Tim Jones believes an ethics bill would have a better chance after this year’s elections. Jones notes that both Kander and the governor are proposing limits that will go into effect after their own campaigns benefit from the status quo.  To date, no new ethics bill has been passed in Missouri, by any name.

Image of the Seal of the Missouri Senate by Tom Lemmens on Wikipedia.

Q.  I am a registered lobbyist who would like to attend a charitable golf tournament.  Are there specific restrictions or requirements for this type of event?

A. Mere attendance at a charitable golf tournament or similar event is not typically restricted.

However, this activity may be prohibited or subject to disclosure requirements depending on the circumstances.

Being a registered lobbyist does not hinder your ability to donate independently to a 501(c)(3) organization.  However, in some instances, your attendance may be requested because the event is associated with a public official.  If an official asks you to attend or sponsor the charitable event, this may be considered making a contribution “at the behest of” the official, depending on the laws in your jurisdiction.

If a charitable contribution is made “at the behest of” a public official, there are two considerations: permissibility and disclosure.  First, is the charitable contribution permissible?  A jurisdiction may consider the charitable contribution to be a gift to the public official who requested it.  For example, Massachusetts considers a charitable contribution in this scenario to be a prohibited gift.  Even if the charitable contribution is a permissible gift, there may be a limit as to how much a lobbyist may donate.

Second, if a lobbyist may make the charitable contribution, is it disclosed on a lobbying report?  In Illinois, these charitable contributions are not reportable on a lobbying report.  In California, the official who made the request of the lobbyist must disclose the charitable contribution.  However, this type of expenditure is reportable on a lobbying report in Connecticut.

If you are a registered lobbyist, check with the applicable state regulatory agency before making a charitable contribution “at the behest of” an official.

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.

There still might be a few of you out there who remember before BCRA and HLOGA, when we only needed to submit a quarter of a page card as our federal lobbying report. Those were the days, my friend!

These days you need to clear your schedule so you can:

1. Compile and track activity in accordance with your organization’s needs;
2. Conduct extensive outreach and follow up to capture applicable expenses/costs;
3. Obtain salaries of all employees engaged in lobbying activities—whether registered or not;
4. Respond to questions about reporting requirements;
5. Provide definitions for determining applicability;
6. Institute tracking mechanisms for Issues and Agency contacts;
7. Coordinate with outside consultants to ensure accurate reporting;
8. Coordinate LD-203 filing process;
9. Prepare documentation in case of an audit; and
10. File the report.

What??? You are not doing this? You are guesstimating! Tell me that is not the case.

If you are in DC you have probably seen me with Rebecca South, Federal Compliance Associate. She has created an amazing program to help the top Fortune 500 companies insure timely and accurate compliance for the LD-2 and LD-203 reports. If we can help alleviate your quarterly headaches, please feel free to contact her at rsouth@stateandfed.com.

Until next month, remember the LD-2 isn’t the only report due in April. According to our Key Dates chart, there are 112 lobbying/employer reports due in this country’s states, counties, and cities.

A bill requiring lobbyists to disclose all legislation they are trying to influence will be introduced into the Delaware Senate, possibly as soon as this week.

Senate Bill 185, as proposed by Senator Anthony J. DeLuca and endorsed by Governor Jack Markell and members of both parties of the General Assembly, mandates lobbyists report to the Public Integrity Commission the identity, by number, of each bill, resolution, or regulation for which the lobbyist has tried to promote, advocate, influence, or oppose. Disclosure of the name of the employer on whose behalf such direct communication occurred is also required.

Additionally, lobbying relating to any subject contained within any budget appropriation bill or bond and capital improvement bill must also include identification of the specific subject of the direct communication. Reports will be due within five business day after the date the first direct communication with a relevant public official regarding bills, resolutions, and regulations takes place. The bill provides for electronic filing of registration and reporting with the Public Integrity Commission.

The Commission will make the reports available online in a manner which can be easily reviewed by bill, resolution, regulation, lobbyist, or employer.

Former Massachusetts Treasurer Timothy Cahill was indicted on charges that he used more than $1.6 million in publicly-funded state lottery advertising to promote his gubernatorial campaign in 2010.

According to Attorney General Martha Coakley as noted in the Boston Globe, “Cahill faces charges of violating state ethics laws, violating state procurement laws, and conspiracy charges in connection with both those alleged crimes. The procurement and ethics law violations each carry possible sentences of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.”

For full news coverage, be sure to read:“Timothy Cahill indicted on charges of using official funds for campaign-boosting ads” by Frank Phillips in the Boston Globe.

Here is Cahill’s response to the indictment: “Former state treasurer Timothy Cahill insists he acted to bolster the Massachusetts Lottery, vows to fight state corruption charges” in the Boston Globe.

A special election will be held on July 24, 2012 to fill the empty seat in House District 68. Thad Viers recently vacated the seat after being charged with harassing his ex-girlfriend.

The primary election will be held June 5, 2012. If necessary, a primary runoff will be held on June 19, 2012.

Photo of the South Carolina State House by Nikopoley on Wikipedia.

Federal: “Lawmakers profit from positions in Congress” by Gary Martin in the San Antonio Express-News.

Federal: “Ethics committee: Sen. Vitter of Louisiana violated public trust in blocking Salazar salary” by The Associated Press in The Washington Post.

Florida: “Senate to decide punishment on Norman ethics violation” by Brittany Davis in the Miami Herald.

Idaho: “Idaho Senate approves series of new ethics rules” by Alex Morrell and Todd Dvorak (Associated Press) in the Idaho Statesman.

Mississippi: “Lawmaker appeals $346K ethics violation order” in The Clarion-Ledger.

New York:  “APNewsBreak: NY board won’t disclose hire record” by The Associated Press in The Wall Street Journal.

Ohio:  “Cleveland lawmaker requests legislative group’s financial records after recent bribery charge” by Joe Guillen in The Plain Dealer.

South Carolina: “Blame enough to go around for ethics rank” in the Orangeburg Times and Democrat.

Texas: “Two-thirds of Texas congressional delegation named in report on ethics lapses” by Gary Martin in the Houston Chronicle.

A US District Court has declared a Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulation regarding disclosure for “electioneering communications” invalid.

The US District Court for the District of Columbia found FEC regulation 11 CFR §104.20(c)(9), which requires disclosure only of those making contributions over $1,000 to an entity for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications, contradicts the statute which requires disclosure of all donors making contributions over $1,000.

Concluding the FEC does not have the authority to narrow the disclosure requirement required by law, the Court declared the regulation invalid by granting the plaintiff, U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen, summary judgment.

The FEC had argued for the need for the regulation after FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL), which concluded corporations and labor organizations were permitted to make expenditures for electioneering communications that did not constitute express advocacy or its functional equivalent. The commission believed requiring only disclosure of funds earmarked for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications appropriately provided the public with adequate disclosure information.

Addressing this argument in the decision, District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote, “The [FEC] cannot unilaterally decide to take on a quintessentially legislative function; if sound policy suggests that the statute needs tailoring in the wake of WRTL or Citizens United, it is up to Congress to do it.”

Federal: “Trade group CEOs enjoy hefty pay raises in a sluggish economy” by William McQuillen and Danielle Ivory in The Washington Post.

Federal: “GAO: Lobbyist disclosure compliance ‘similar’ compared to prior years” by Rachel Leven in The Hill.

Federal: “Calif. biotech firms spend $40 million on lobbying in 3 years” by Bernice Yeung on CaliforniaWatch.org.

Federal: “Tech companies new lobbying force in DC” by Garrett Sloane in the New York Post.

New Jersey: “Some of Christie’s biggest bills match model legislation from D.C. group called ALEC” by Salvador Rizzo in the Star-Ledger.

Utah: “Rolly: Lobbyist and legislator in one? Could happen” by Paul Rolly in the Salt Lake Tribune.

“Federal judge says Federal Election Commission went too far in shielding campaign ad donors” by The Associated Press in the Washington Post.

“US Joins Countries Not Enforcing Campaign-Finance Regulations” by Samuel Rubenfeld in the Wall Street Journal.

Connecticut: “Governor’s controversial campaign finance fix rejected” by Mark Pazniokas on CTMirror.com.

New York: “Albany to begin Act II of legislative session” by Jon Campbell in the Lower Hudson Journal News. Campaign finance will be on the agenda.