A 2006 New Hampshire ethics reform law requiring any non-public official who meets with a lawmaker to discuss legislation to register as a lobbyist has recently come under fire.  The law currently exempts lawyers who are full-time employees of a public body from the registration requirement.  Opponents of the law argue small towns and school districts that cannot afford a full-time attorney are put at a disadvantage to larger governmental organizations in efforts to influence legislation.

Citing the law, New Hampshire Rep. Rick Watrous recently asked the attorney general’s office to investigate the actions of attorney John Teague. Teague serves as the Concord School District’s lawyer, but is not a full-time school district employee.  Teague participated in a meeting with Senate President Sylvia Larsen, Sen. Betsi DeVries, and the Superintendent of the Concord School District to discuss a House bill dealing with the school district’s charter.  The attorney general’s office found that Teague ran afoul of the law by meeting with lawmakers privately and issued a public warning and ordered Teague to register retroactively as a lobbyist and pay the $50 annual filing fee.  The finding has raised concerns about the propriety and application of the current registration requirement, including calls for legislative reform of the statute.

Photo of New Hampshire State Capitol Building by Nikopoley on Wikipedia.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear the city’s appeal of a lawsuit brought by the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce over the city’s campaign finance rules involving independent expenditures.

Long Beach appealed to the high court after the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling stating the Chamber’s PAC may receive unlimited contributions to fund their independent campaign expenditures in city elections.

Photo of Long Beach by WPPilot on Wikipedia.

A federal judge has granted the request of two men seeking to be able to contribute in excess of the state’s limit of $1,000 to a noncandidate political action committee. U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright issued an order permitting the plaintiffs in the action to contribute $2,500 to the Aloha Family Alliance, a noncandidate political action committee which supports traditional marriage and opposes abortion and physician-assisted suicide, for the general election.

Hawaii law limits contributions to a noncandidate committee to $1,000 per election, with the primary and general election counting as two separate elections. Neither plaintiff in this action had made a contribution during the primary election. Further, the written order does not allow others exceed the $1,000 limit for the general election.

State Attorney General Mark Bennett has requested a stay of the order while the case is appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This order only speaks to this particular facet of the lawsuit, not to the additional plaintiff complaints regarding disclaimers and attribution related to advertisements, political reporting requirements, and pay-to-play restrictions, which Judge Seabright will rule on at a later date.

If approved, Issue 14 will require the council to pass legislation within 90 days amending the city’s campaign finance regulations. The caps on individual contributions would increase from $100 to $200 per candidate per election for ward candidates and from $300 to $450 for candidates for mayor and council members-at-large.

Also, the council will be required to hold mandatory public hearings every two years to revisit the city’s contribution limits to consider adjustments for inflation and costs of living.

During a recent session of the council Rules Committee, the measure received unanimous support, with similar support expected before the full council at their Tuesday, October 12, 2010 meeting.

The new ordinance not only creates an independent ethics commission, but also provides for the operation of an ethics hotline and the mandatory ethics training of all consolidated government officials within 90 days of being elected. The ordinance, if passed, would reinstitute ethics features similar to the city’s originally chartered Code of Ethics, which was removed in the early 1970’s reportedly due to potential conflicts with a new statewide ethics law adopted by the Florida legislature which covered all public officials.

Photo of Jacksonville skyline by Jonathan Zander on Wikipedia.

The plaintiffs allege the lieutenant governor’s office, which is charged by law to enforce the state’s campaign finance regulations, has taken no enforcement action against the 41 of 58 major county political parties which failed to submit their campaign finance disclosure statements by the recent August 31st deadline. The plaintiffs then turned to the Utah Attorney General asking for enforcement of the disclosure requirements.

The Attorney General’s office did not respond to the plaintiff’s enforcement request but later explained through a spokesman state law authorizes the lieutenant governor to act in matters touching upon campaign finance. For its part, the lieutenant governor’s office advises political parties to submit their financial disclosure statements even though state law does not specifically require them to do so.

According to Mark Thomas, elections director for the lieutenant governor, state law remains ambiguous on the question of the reporting responsibilities of county political parties; a question which will persist until state lawmakers clarify the law. “We would all like to get it better clarified,” Thomas said.

Photo of Salt Lake City by Skyguy414 on Wikipedia.

Elizabeth Bartz, President and CEO of State and Federal Communications, Inc. was quoted in Impact, the Public Affairs Council’s digital newsletter. The article is titled “Has the Tea Party Already Peaked? Some Say: Don’t Be Too Certain.”

According to Bartz, the topic of the National Conference of State Legislatures was not the Tea Party:

“Everybody was talking about health care,” says Bartz. “None of the people there were talking about the Tea Party or Sarah Palin or Ron and [Kentucky Republican Seante nominee] Rand Paul, or anything of that ‘anti-establishment’ stuff.”

The Library of Congress hosts a Web site of historical collections called American Memory. One of that site’s hidden gems is “I Do Solemnly Swear…”: Presidential Inaugurations. The Library of Congress has pulled 2,000 digital documents from their many divisions and includes transcripts of the speeches, as well as “diaries and letters of presidents and of those who witnessed inaugurations, handwritten drafts of inaugural addresses, broadsides, inaugural tickets and programs, prints, photographs, and sheet music.”

Would you like to see the hand-written copy of George Washington’s first inaugural speech? How about a photo from Abraham Lincoln’s first inauguration? The site offers a series of 12 videos ,with Marvin Kranz, historical specialist in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress giving commentary.

Did you know the oath each president recites is in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution?

I love finding out about firsts and mosts, so I was delighted by the fun page of Precedents and Notable Events. George Washington had the shortest inaugural speech at 135 words and William H. Harrison had the longest with 10,000 words! The inauguration of James Polk was the first to be covered by telegraph, James Buchanan’s the first to be photographed, William McKinley’s the first to be filmed (silent movie), Herbert Hoover’s the first to be covered by talking newsreel, Harry Truman’s the first to be televised, and – you probably have guessed – Bill Clinton’s was the first to be broadcast live on the internet.

So have fun. I do solemnly swear you’ll love “I Do Solemnly Swear …” : Presidential Inaugurations!

The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices will be closed on Friday, October 8, 2010 for a mandatory furlough day and Monday, October 11, 2010 in observance of Columbus Day.

The commission advises independent expenditure reports which are due by October 12, 2010 (the October Summary Report) may be submitted to the commission by fax. The fax number which may be used is: (207) 287-6775.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the decision in Family PAC v. McKenna, et al. which declared a Washington law limiting campaign contributions in the final weeks of ballot measure campaigns unconstitutional.  U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton ruled last month that the Washington limit is an unconstitutional infringement on political speech.  Late Tuesday, a panel of Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges blocked that ruling from taking effect while the state appeals.

The three-judge panel wrote “Washington and its voters have a significant interest in preventing the State’s long-standing campaign finance laws from being upended by the courts so soon before the upcoming election.”  The Court also considered that Family PAC had failed to identify any contributions greater than $5000 that it expected to receive in the event the law would be overturned and appeared not to be participating in the upcoming general election, mitigating any harm that may come from the stay of the ruling.  Family PAC was created shortly after last year’s legal deadline for large campaign contributions had passed. The committee said it had an offer for a large donation to finance political ads but could not accept the money because of the state law.

The indictment, the result of a months-long joint investigation by the FBI and the Alabama Attorney General’s office, accuses the business owners of hiring the lobbyists to conduct “a full-scale campaign to bribe and coerce state legislators and others into supporting pro-gambling legislation that they favored”, according to Alabama Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer in this CNN article.

The state senators named in the criminal complaint are Larry Means, James Preuitt, Quinton Ross, and Harri Anne Smith. Several of the charges levied carry maximum penalties of significant prison time and fines of up to $250,000.

Photo of a casino by Raul654 on Wikipedia.

Q. As a registered lobbyist, I am often contacted by elected officials to make a corporate contribution to the officials’ charity of choice, foundation, or scholarship fund. Is this legal? Am I required to disclose these contributions on my lobbying reports?

A. This scenario happens more and more every day. Even though the official does not derive direct, political contributions for his or her campaign, such charitable contributions nonetheless result in positive exposure for the official, goodwill by the lobbyist, and beneficiaries that include the underprivileged, the sick, and the elderly. Furthermore, the monetary amount of corporate charitable donations can surpass the amount of permissible political contributions under campaign finance law.

Most states allow a lobbyist’s employer to make charitable contributions at the behest of an elected official and there are no reporting obligations. Some of the other jurisdictional requirements include:

FEDERAL: Pursuant to House and Senate Rules, charitable contributions made by a registered lobbyist at the behest or designation of a legislative member or employee are prohibited, unless the member or employee has designated the contribution to a charitable organization in lieu of an honorarium.

Please note, however, a charitable organization established by a person before that person became a covered official – and where that covered official has no relationship to the organization after becoming a covered official – is not considered to be established by a covered official.

NEW YORK: Charitable contributions made at the behest of a public official are not permitted.

NEW JERSEY and NEVADA: The charitable contribution is allowed but is not reportable as long as the contribution is not made in the official’s name.

CALIFORNIA: The contribution is permissible but must be reported by the official, not the lobbyist or the employer.

CONNECTICUT: The charitable contribution is permissible and is reported as a lobbying expenditure.

DELAWARE: The contribution is reported as a gift.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: The contribution is reported as other.

WYOMING: The contribution is only reported if it exceeds $500.

UTAH: Charitable contributions given for a political purpose are reportable.

If clients who subscribe to our Executive Source Guide on Lobbying Laws™ have further questions about other jurisdictions, they can always check the particular jurisdiction in the online resources. Or, clients can call us if they have some special information need.

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 U.S. House of Representatives has passed the State Ethics Law Protection Act. H.R. 3427 would preclude the Federal Highway Administration from interpreting a state’s Pay-to-Play laws as conflicting with federal contract bidding requirements for federal-aid highway projects.

The measure has now passed to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

A Montana district judge will rule on a challenge to Montana’s nearly century-old, voter-passed restriction on direct corporate spending to support or oppose political parties or candidates.  The Montana law is being challenged based upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s January ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overturned a federal ban on corporate spending in political campaigns.

Attorneys for the State of Montana defended the law stating that a law enacted in 1912 should not be lumped with a law Congress enacted 90 years later under a one-size-fits-all federal rule.   They added that corporations do speak freely in Montana elections under current law with nearly 200 political action committees active in state politics in the past decade and warned unlimited corporate campaign spending would drastically alter Montana’s current campaigns that rely on person-to-person contact.