This week the Missouri Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether lawmakers acted illegally in a legislative attempt to increase ethics requirements. The case appeals a ruling by Circuit Judge Daniel Green finding Senate Bill 844 to be a violation of the constitution’s single subject requirement.

What began as a one-page bill allowing officials to use the Office of Administration for procurement decisions became a 69-page bill entitled “relating to ethics.” The bill 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.

Judge Green’s ruling struck down all but the original procurement provision. The Attorney General believes the bill can be saved by striking only the provision regarding Capitol dome keys. Those challenging the bill argue the entire bill is unconstitutional.

Photo of the Missouri Supreme Court building by Americasroof on Wikipedia.

The Fair Political Practices Commission has issued notice of proposed amendments to the California Code of Regulations to be considered at a public hearing on December 8, 2011. The proposed regulations codify commission guidance instructing filers to treat an in-kind contribution of the services of salaried personnel to a committee and the expenditure by the person making the salary payment as a contribution made on the payroll date of the salaried personnel.

The commission will also consider regulations which differentiate a contribution from a donation. Under the proposed regulation, a contribution is a payment made for a political purpose and includes payments to a multi-purpose organization. By contrast, a payment to a multi-purpose organization that is not made or used for a political purpose is to be treated as a donation and not a contribution for the purposes of identifying reportable contributions.

Lastly, the commission will consider amendments to the provisions pertaining to primarily formed and general purpose committees to assist filers in determining which label fits the purpose and structure of their committee.

The regulations define a general purpose committee as an ongoing committee which supports multiple candidates and measures in successive elections. General purpose committees include associations, political action committees, political party committees, major donors, as well as entities and individuals making independent expenditures.

The regulation proposes a standard for determining whether a committee is a state, county, or city general purpose committee. A committee will be considered a city or county committee if more than 70 percent of their activity is at the city or county level. Classification as a state committee will be the default.

Pursuant to the proposed regulation, a primarily formed committee is a committee formed or existing to support a single candidate or measure in a specific election. A committee will be considered primarily formed if more than 70 percent of the committee’s contributions and expenditures are for specific candidates or measures during the 24 months preceding the date where the candidate or measure is on the ballot.

Image of the Seal of California by Zscout370 on Wikipedia.

The Federal Election Commission has received an advisory opinion request asking if an independent expenditure-only PAC may use incumbent members of congress in its advertisements.

Independent expenditure PAC American Crossroads has formally requested it be allowed to produce and distribute television and radio advertisements featuring on camera footage or voice-overs of incumbent members of congress up for re-election. Conceding the purpose of the ads would be to improve the public’s perception of the congress member, the advertisements would focus on policy and legislative issues.

American Crossroads is seeking confirmation and guidance as to whether the advertisements qualify as coordinated communications, are in-kind contributions, or may limit the PAC’s ability to independently expend funds in favor of the candidate.

The advisory opinion request can be found here.

National:

Largest U.S. Companies Increasingly Disclose Political Spending

Report Cites Growing Role of Interest Groups in State Judicial Elections

Federal:

Abramoff Divulges K Street Secrets

Cain Blames Perry as New Sexual Harassment Allegations Surface

FCC To Rule on On-line Political Advertisement Disclosure

Justice Amps Up Enforcement of Law on Foreign Advocacy

Lawmakers Demand FEC Documents, Threaten Subpoena

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama

New Alabama Ethics Law Sweeps in Culture Shift for Capital Lobbyists

California

Passion, Politics Link Lobbyist Couples

California

State Lobby Spending on Pace to Set Records

Illinois

Illinois Powerbroker Convicted in Shakedown Trial

Maryland

County Ethics Bill Would Restrict Lobbying, Add Enforcement

Minnesota

Campaign Finance Board Temporarily Upholds Disclosure Requirements

Nebraska

Report: Nebraska OK at tracking lobbyists, could do better

New Hampshire

N.H. Official Sets Primary for Jan.10

Ohio

Amid Corruption Scandal, Local Races Framed by Honesty and Character Issues

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.

Politico published “FEC can’t explain secrecy” by Dave Levinthal.

The Hill posted “Lawmakers demand FEC documents, threaten subpoena” by Debbie Siegelbaum and Kevin Bogardus.

The FEC provided this press release and the text of the joint statement delivered to the oversight hearing.

California’s government transparency website, transparency.ca.gov, has been shut down. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar set up the site, and it is being closed by current Gov. Jerry Brown. In a note placed on the derelict site, Gov. Brown says much of the transparency information is available on other websites, like the FPPC. While remaining committed to government transparency, Brown says he is aiming for “eliminating inefficiencies and unnecessary costs.”

One concern has been raised in the news. The site offered easy access to travel expense claims from the Governor’s Office and now with the site gone, an inquirer must send a request for such information.

The Sacramento Bee published “Jerry Brown closes website for some public records” by David Siders.

Government Technology posted “Calif. Transparency Website Shuttered” by Sarah Rich.

He has appeared in a 60 Minutes interview, saying whatever ethics reform measures may be set in place to control the buying of influence, lobbyists will find new ways to get around it.

Here is the CBS interview, “Lobbyists can skirt ethics reform, says Abramoff.”

The Hill covers the story in “Abramoff divulges K Street secrets” by Kevin Bogardus.

If you would like a fun diversion, try Doug Wead’s Children of the Presidents. This site gives biographies and fascinating pictures of each United States president’ s children from George Washington’s two stepchildren, John and Martha Custis, to Barack Obama’s daughters Malia and Sasha.

Some of them died young; some of them lived to a ripe old age. Some were rich and powerful, while others were rather obscure. A number of the children worked in the White House with their fathers!

According to the site, Abraham Lincoln’s son Robert Todd Lincoln “was one of the wealthiest men in American, serving as president of the Pullman Palace Car Company, the Microsoft of its day.  He was the Secretary of War under James Garfield and was Ambassador to the Court of St. James.”

You will find links to video footage from an interview of Caroline Kennedy, and from the weddings of Jenna Bush and Chelsea Clinton.

Have fun with Children of the Presidents and have a great weekend!

The Boston Globe’s Political Intelligence just published this article, “Transparency groups lash out at FEC, Obama” by Donovan Slack.

Here are some of the questions the article raises: “… [C]an foreign companies with some US operations legally contribute to US elections? In the past, foreign citizens and companies have been barred from spending money in the American political system. Also unanswered: Should American organizations who spend money to influence elections have to disclose the source of the money?”

Bruce Watson offers an opinion piece called “Really Want to Influence Politicians? Stop Donating to Campaigns” on AOL’s Daily Finance page. Watson puts particular focus on the increase in fundraising by the members of the Super Committee. He references a recent study by the Project On Government Oversight. As we recall, Politico offered a bit of a different view with “Supercommittee panelists don’t cash in” by Abby Phillip.

Governor Earl Ray Tomblin has called a special session to be held on November 13, 2011.

The purpose of the session will be to certify and declare the results of the October 4, 2011 special election.

Map of West Virginia by Jim Irwin on Wikipedia.

Tim Uppal, Canada’s Minister of State for Democratic Reform has proposed a law which would limit loans available to candidates and political parties.

Under the proposed legislation, loans, loan guarantees, and contributions from individuals would be prohibited from exceeding $1,100 in the aggregate per calendar year. Presently, loans are not treated as part of the annual aggregate limit.

The proposal would also ban loans by unions as well as corporations when the loans are not made in the regular course of business by a financial institution.

GEORGIA: A special election to fill the state House District 68 seat of Tim Bearden will be held December 6, according to an announcement by Georgia’s Secretary of State.

Bearden resigned his seat last month after being appointed director of the Georgia Public Safety Training Center by Governor Nathan Deal.

If a runoff is needed, it will be held January 3, 2012.

A Federal constitutional amendment allowing Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance is being introduced by U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennett.

The amendment, a response to last year’s Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v FEC, grants Congress and the states the power to “regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents” in their laws for their respective elections.

The bill allows the government to set limits on both the amount of direct political contributions to candidates and the amount of independent expenditures that may be made in support of or in opposition to those candidates.

According to his press release, Senator Udall states, “With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.”

The full text of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on:

(1) The amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

(2) The amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on:

(1) The amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

(2) The amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

A different constitutional amendment addressing the Citizen’s United decision was introduced in September by Congressman John Conyers. Information about that amendment may be found in a prior LobbyComply post here.

A one-day special session of the Arizona Legislature was called by Governor Jan Brewer yesterday to impeach the chairwoman of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

The Senate vote to impeach Chairwoman Colleen Coyle Mathis passed with the required two thirds majority. The chairwoman, a registered independent, was ousted with a party line vote of 21 Republican senators in favor of the removal and 6 Democratic senators opposed.

Governor Brewer alleges gross misconduct by Chairwoman Mathis in her role in the independent commission, which also has two democratic members and two republican members.

Photo of the Arizona State Capitol building by 2candle on Wikipedia.