Q.  If my employer hosts a function to which all members of the state legislature are invited, must I disclose the name of each individual legislator attending, or can I merely reference the fact that all members were invited?

A. This is a very common occurrence for most lobbyists: to pay for events where all members of the legislature, or some other identifiable group, are invited. The reporting implications for such events range from simple aggregate disclosure to detailed reporting where the name of every legislator attending must be listed. The key to accurate reporting is to know how the state defines “all invited” and whether it takes into consideration any type of “sub-group.”

Here is a representative summary of the varied reporting requirements you might encounter with this type of event:

Arizona – All expenditures incurred by a principal or lobbyist for a special event for legislators – including parties, dinners, athletic events, entertainment, and other functions – to which all members of the legislature, either house of the legislature, or any committee of the legislature are invited must be reported. These expenditures do not have to be reported based on the cost per legislator. However, a description of the event, date and location of the event, number of persons invited, and total expenditures must be reported.

Arkansas – A “special event” is a planned activity to which a specific governmental body or identifiable group of public servants is invited. One of the unique aspects of Arkansas disclosure in this situation is that if the event has multiple co-hosts, the names of all other lobbyists sharing in the cost of the event must be reported.

Also in Arkansas, hospitality rooms may be reported as a “special event” provided the lobbyist invites specific governmental bodies or identifiable groups of public servants. When reporting hospitality room expenses, the lobbyist must itemize the date the hospitality room was open; the name of the event hosted; the exact amount paid by the lobbyist towards the total expenditure for the hospitality room; and the names of all other lobbyists sharing in the cost of the room.

Georgia – Aggregate expenditures on food, beverages, and registration at group events to which all members of an agency, including the legislature and its committees and subcommittees, are invited must be disclosed. Also, if an expenditure is made on behalf of a public official and is simultaneously incurred for an identifiable group of public officials, the individual identification of whom would be impractical, the name of the individual official need not be disclosed. A general description of the identifiable group will suffice.

Louisiana – For legislative lobbying, the following must be invited before invoking group disclosure: the entire legislature; either house; any standing committee; select committee; statutory committee; committee created by resolution of either house; subcommittee of any committee; recognized caucus; or any delegation thereof. Disclosure includes the name of the group invited; the amount, date, and location of the event.

For executive branch lobbying, group disclosure is when more than 25 executive branch officials are invited to a reception, social gathering, or other function. The name of the event, amount, date, and location must be reported.

Utah – In Utah, food or beverage expenditures must be reported if the aggregate daily expenditures benefitting the public official are greater than $25, unless the food or beverage is provided in connection with an event to which all of the members of the legislature, a standing committee, interim committee, legislative task force, or a party caucus are invited.

Washington – Washington does not provide for group reporting. Even if all members of the legislature, or all members of any sub-group within the legislature, are invited, every individual person must be listed by name if the expenditure exceeds $25 per occasion (which it usually does when group events are involved).

If two or more lobbyist employers share the expenses of a reception or other entertainment event, the lobbyist primarily responsible for organizing the event must disclose on his or her monthly L-2 report the names of the legislators (and members of their immediate families) attending the group event. Rather than duplicating this list of attendees, the L-2 reports filed by the lobbyists of the other employers sponsoring the event may make reference to the lobbyist’s report that contains these details.

We have not listed rules for all the states, only examples of some states. If you have a question on a state not listed here, please contact us directly at 330-761-9960.

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.

Companion bills seeking to create “revolving door” restrictions for members of the Texas legislature have been introduced during the 2011 session. Senate Bill 128 and House Bill 508 seek to prevent former members of the legislature from lobbying “before the date of final adjournment of the second regular session of the legislature to convene after the date the person ceases to be a member.”

If passed as presently written, a violation would be considered a class A misdemeanor in Texas.

Image of the Texas flag and state courtesy of Shem on Wikipedia.

Senate Bill 37, introduced by Senator Daniel Squadron, proposes to curtail political contributions by lobbyists.   The bill limits lobbyist political contributions to $250 per candidate, per election and contributions may only be made between the first of July and the end of the year.

The bill further bars lobbyists from soliciting or transmitting a contribution or a request for a contribution from any person, including a political committee, for the benefit of a public official or party committee.

Photo of New York State Capitol courtesy of UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

Representative Keith Grover has prepared HB 32 for introduction, which would amend the current statutory campaign contribution and financial reporting requirements. The bill requires new disclosure reports to be filed, including both annual and interim reports, from county political parties spending at least $50 or receiving at least $750.

Included in the reports would be specific donor and expenditure detail. The bill also includes penalties, fines, and scheduling dates for filing.

The Seal of Utah by Svgalbertian on Wikipedia.

A proposed ethics law would create a “revolving door” restriction for former West Virginia elected officials and senior members of their staff.

Under House Bill 2464, these people would have to wait one year after leaving office before acting as a lobbyist at the state level. A more controversial aspect of this bill would require public officials to disclose their spouse’s source of income in campaign disclosure filings.

A similar bill was proposed last year but stalled in the Senate Finance Committee.

Photo of the West Virginia state capitol building by Analogue Kid on Wikipedia.

The first of numerous recent changes to Quebec’s campaign finance law has gone into effect with the turn of the calendar into 2011. Touted as the first major reform in financing Quebec’s political parties since 1977, Assembly Bill 113 effectively lowered the contribution limit a voter may contribute to a party or candidate from $3,000 to $1,000 effective on January 1, 2011. Additional changes are set to take effect on May 1, 2011.

Included in these changes is a requirement for all contributions to first pass through the province’s Chief Electoral Officer, who will then distribute the contribution as directed. Further, in an effort to prevent companies from making contributions in the names of employees, all persons making a contribution will now be required to declare the contribution is made out of the person’s own property and voluntarily.

Finally, additional penalties have been created, including a prohibition for three years on the ability of any natural or legal person convicted of a campaign finance offense to acquire a public contract.

Photo of Québec City by Martin St-Amant on Wikipedia.

One of the pages of the U.S. Senate Web site lets you have a seat at the Senate Chamber desks. Rich with artistry and history, the Senate Chamber Desks site is smart a virtual tour.

Following the “Burning of Washington” in the War of 1812, in which the U.S. Capitol Building was partially damaged, there was a re-building of the Capitol. The new Senate Chamber needed to be refurnished, so in 1818  Vice President Daniel Tompkins hired cabinet-maker Thomas Constantine to construct 48 mahogany desks and armchairs:

“The Senate purchased 48 mahogany desks for its chamber in 1819, adding desks as new states joined the Union. To date, more than 1,600 senators have occupied these historic desks.”

The desks have been altered over the years to meet the senators’ needs. Writing boxes were added to the top of the desks. Microphones and speakers underneath were added in the 1990s to assist senators in hearing the floor proceedings.

On the Senate Chamber Desks Web site, you can find out about how the desks are numbered, and how the seating arrangement is decided with the beginning of each new Congress.

The history you will find here is priceless: There is the time during the Civil War that Isaac Bassett (who worked in the Senate Chamber) had to stop Federal soldiers from chopping Jefferson Davis’ desk to bits for being a traitor. Did you know that many senators have been carving their names in the desk drawers since the early 1900s? One inscription in the desk of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond noted that he “spoke 24 hrs. 18 mins. from this desk in 1957,” commemorating his record-breaking filibuster against the Civil Rights Act.

There is also the fun and famous “Candy Desk,” a tradition started in 1965 by Senator George Murphy of California as a service to his fellow senators. According to the site, the tradition has carried on: “In every Congress since that time a candy desk has been located in the back row of the Republican side, on the aisle and adjacent to the Chamber’s most heavily used entrance.”

Enjoy this look into the Senate Chamber! And with that I bid you good day.
The photos used here are courtesy of the U.S. Senate Web site.

State Senator Kathy Stein has introduced legislation to make Kentucky a “no cup of coffee” state. The bill would reduce lobbyist’s annual expenditure ceiling from $100 per year on a state official to absolutely nothing.

Additionally, the proposed ethics law would extend Kentucky’s prohibition on lobbyists making campaign contributions during a legislative session to the lobbyists’ employers and to PACs.

Photo courtesy of Julius Schorzman on Wikipedia.

Senate Bill 75, introduced to the Legislature on the first day of session, seeks to reinstate the state’s campaign contribution limits.  The bill limits contributions to $2,000 for statewide office, $1,000 for state senators, $500 for state representatives, $325 for any other office if the population is under 100,000, $850 if it is between 100,000 and 250,000, and $1,275 if the population is more than 250,000.

The bill also alters the state’s revolving door provision by preventing legislators from becoming lobbyists for two years after leaving office.

Photo of the Missouri State Capitol by Visitjeffersoncity on Wikipedia.

The American Bar Association’s Task Force on Federal Lobbying Laws has issued a report recommending several changes to existing federal lobbying laws. The Task Force proposes broadening registration requirements for lobbyist by eliminating the current twenty percent rule, the threshold amount of time devoted to lobbying required before triggering registration.

The Task Force also recommends disclosing outside lobbying support by other firms and individuals, including details of compensation, specific identities of those involved, and short narrative summaries of the work performed. Lobbying support would be defined to include monitoring legislative and administrative developments related to lobbying goals, strategic advice, polling, and other activities. Additionally, in some situations, the lobbying support entity would be required to file disclosures.

The report includes other recommendations including strengthening the regulation of lobbyist participation in political fundraising.

The report by the Task Force on Federal Lobbying Laws has not been approved by the Council of the Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, the House of Delegates, or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association.

Photo of the American Bar Association building in Washington, D.C. by AgnosticPreachersKid at enwikipedia.

The Houston City Council is expected to consider a new ethics ordinance this week wherein attorneys would no longer be able to lobby city officials under the guise of performing legal work. The ordinance would require all persons lobbying to register as lobbyists or face criminal penalties.

Further, changes would also be made prohibiting city officials from accepting or soliciting gifts from parties seeking to do business with the city.

Photo of Houston City Hall by Daniel2986 on Wikipedia.

Prince George’s County Executive Rushern L. Baker is proposing the General Assembly pass an ethics law prohibiting local council members from reviewing land use cases where there has been no appeal. Currently, when a planning board has decided an outcome, and there is no appeal by either the developer or the resident, the council can still choose to ‘call’ up the case. Baker wants to prevent this procedure because the purpose may be to seek concessions from developers.

Baker is also proposing they pass legislation similar to what has already been proposed by Delegate Justin Ross, requiring local officials to recuse themselves from voting on building projects if a developer contributed to a shared campaign account affiliated with the official. Presently, local leaders may vote on land use projects while indirectly receiving political contribution from these developers through accounts shared with General Assembly candidates.

An Advisory Committee on Campaign Finance created by Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has issued a report recommending changes to the state’s campaign finance laws. Among the 25 recommendations are treating LLC clusters and all other legal entities with common ownership or control as single entities for contribution limit purposes, requiring disclosure from any non-political party group making independent expenditures for the election or defeat of a candidate, and requiring loan-related violations of campaign contribution limits to be assessed against candidates as well as lenders.

The committee suggested further study for issues regarding how campaign finance laws apply to “new media,” including requiring the reporting of sub-vendor information, to prevent covert campaigning by candidates and their committees through anonymous sources.

There is a great deal of discussion surrounding what this new Congress will bring. There has also been some attention surrounding the oath of office, with two House Members apparently voting without having attended the official swearing-in. Here is a nice piece by Politico describing the situation.

The United States Senate Web site offers a great history of the oath of office. On the Web site of the Office of the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, there is also a description of the oath for House Members. For those who need a refresher, you will find a nice primer on the U.S. Senate Web site called, “What Happens When a New Congress Begins.”

Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution states that “members of Congress shall be bound by an oath to support the Constitution.” But it does not offer a text for such an oath. From the first congress in 1789, the oath that was used was short and simple: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

For many years, this oath was deemed sufficient. But the oath we are accustomed to hearing is much longer and goes as follows:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The Senate Web site describes the reason for the change that occurred over 70 years after that first congress:

“In April of 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session in July, members echoed the president’s action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath.”

In honor of the 112th Congress, here is a link to C-Span’s coverage of the 112th Congress. Have a wonderful weekend!

Photo of Vice President Richard Nixon administering the oath of office to Senator Gale McGee in 1959, and the United States Senate in session in their new chamber (1859) courtesy of the U.S. Senate Web site.