The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals determined Colorado’s voter-approved campaign reporting requirement for small groups promoting ballot initiatives to be unconstitutional. The case stems from a challenge by a group of homeowners who failed to register as an issue committee upon becoming a group of two or more persons and accepting or making contributions or expenditures in excess of $200. Six homeowners had raised and spent less than $1,000 fighting a ballot question concerning the annexation of their subdivision, Parker North, into the town of Parker, Colorado.

Plaintiff’s attorney Steve Simpson, a member of the Arlington, Virginia-based Institute for Justice, has stated this case is the first ruling in the nation wherein reporting requirements for issue committees have been linked to the First Amendment and deemed unconstitutional. Simpson also added the decision in this case signals a split with another appellate court, causing the case to be ripe for appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

You can read the full text of the opinion here.

Three of us from State and Federal Communications attended the Capitolbeat 2010 Conference in Phoenix, Arizona from November 11-13. When Ren Koozer, Jim Sedor, and I arrived, we were greeted by sunshine, palm trees, and seventy-five degree weather.

Capitolbeat is an organization for reporters and editors covering state and local governments. The conference this year offered 29 general and break-out sessions with topics ranging from the budget crisis in the states to redistricting  in the state Legislatures and Congressional districts. There were amazing presenters from the Pew Center on the States, PBS Newshour, Moody’s Corporation, the Associated Press, the Census Bureau, and more. I did chin-ups on every word.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was a highlighted speaker on Saturday morning. He spoke on immigration law, the implications of the recent elections, and the crucial role that journalists have in holding state and local governments accountable. Richardson appeared happy to be there and peppered his speech with jokes – and if we didn’t respond, he said, “That was supposed to be funny,” which got him the laughter he was seeking.

Capitolbeat 2010 gave us the chance to meet many journalists from around the country, and they had a chance to get to know State and Federal Communications as well. I don’t know where the conference will be next year, but you can be sure we’ll be there. We look forward to seeing all of our old and new friends next year.

Although the provisions of the bill were enacted as a new and separate chapter in the Louisiana Revised Statutes, they largely mirror the requirements of the lobbying laws already applicable to legislative and executive branch lobbying on the state level.  For example, as it is on the state level, registrations expire on December 31^st of each year and registration renewals are due on January 31^st at the latest.  Reports of local lobbying activity are due on the 25^th day of each month, as they are at the state level.  And the information required to be disclosed is largely the same.

The bill contains a provision found in the state executive branch lobbying law, but not in the legislative branch lobbying law, which allows an employer to file reports on behalf of all the lobbyists representing that employer’s interests.  An employer wishing to exercise that option must notify the board of ethics by January 31^st.

Unlike the state-level lobbying laws, the bill does not specify a registration fee for local lobbyists.

The Louisiana Board of Ethics is responsible under the bill for administering and enforcing the provisions of the bill.  This includes educational activities and seminars related to the bill, as well as the assessment of late filing fees.

State and Federal Communications will continue to monitor developments with regard to local lobbying laws in Louisiana as the bill goes into effect and is implemented by the board of ethics.

Photo of the Louisiana State Capitol by Bluepoint951 on Wikipedia.

During Director Freel’s tenure, the Commission issued ethics advice and guidance concerning Ohio’s Ethics Law to thousands of Ohio’s public officials and employees. Director Freel also supervised hundreds of investigations of Ethics Law violations at the local and state levels.

“I have truly enjoyed my work with so many Ethics Commission members and professional staff of high integrity over the years – they represent the finest ethical standard in public service for Ohio and its citizens,” said Executive Director Freel. “After 17 years as the Executive Director, I decided several weeks ago that it was time to hand over the reins to a new Director the Commission would choose.”

The Commission will discuss the search and selection process for a new executive director at its November meeting. Director Freel will step down at the end of the year.

You may read the Ethics Commission’s press release here.

The 19th Judicial District Court of Baton Rouge has ruled the Ethics Board cannot enforce penalties for campaign finance violations. The court found a separate Ethics Adjudicatory Board must conduct public hearings when the Ethics Board alleges the late filing of, or absence of filing, campaign reports.

The Ethics Board had argued campaign violations requiring investigations were already referred to the Ethics Adjudicatory Board, but cases involving the mere failure to file reports on time, or not at all, did not require any investigation, and therefore did not require a separate hearing. The division of giving the Ethics Board investigatory and prosecutorial authority, while giving the Ethics Adjudicatory Board judicial power, comes from a 2008 change in the law meant to streamline the regulatory process.

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board issued Advisory Opinion 413 clarifying the state’s lobbyist registration requirements.  The Board sought to answer whether a lobbyist is required to register multiple times when employed by an entity which consists of a parent company and a number of affiliates, including subsidiaries and joint ventures controlled by or under common ownership and control of the parent company.

Several of the affiliates have legislative and administrative interests in Minnesota, and lobbying is conducted on their behalf.  The Board concluded that a lobbyist must register on behalf of each association whose interests they promote, regardless of the mechanism used to retain or direct the efforts of the lobbyists.   The opinion continued that a lobbyist who represents an association such as a trade or business association is not required to register separately for each member of the association.

Photo of the Minnesota State Capitol by Mulad on Wikipedia.

Q. I am registered in numerous states.  What are some of the features I need to know regarding renewing my lobbyist registrations for 2011?   Do all my registrations automatically expire at the end of the year?  H-E-L-P!

A. These are all very good questions, as January 1, 2011 is quickly approaching.  The expirations on December 31 of this year are particularly thorny because they include not only those states having annual expirations, but most biennial expirations occur at the end of an even-numbered year.

As the states begin their 2011 legislative sessions, here are some things to keep in mind:

Annual registrations:  The majority of states have a registration term based on a calendar year.  If registered in any of the following states, your registration will expire on December 31, 2010.

Alabama	Mississippi
Alaska	Missouri
Arkansas	Nebraska
District of Columbia	New Hampshire
Florida [legislative and executive]	New Mexico
Georgia	North Carolina
Idaho [legislative and executive]	Ohio [executive]
Illinois	Oklahoma
Indiana [legislative and executive]	Rhode Island [legislative]
Iowa [legislative]	South Carolina
Kansas	Tennessee
Louisiana [legislative and executive]	Texas
Massachusetts

Biennial registrations:  The trick to keeping track of your registration expiration for biennial states is knowing whether the biennium ends on December 31^st of an even-numbered or odd-numbered year.

Those states with biennial registrations expiring on December 31, 2010, include:

California	Pennsylvania
Connecticut	Utah
Hawaii	Vermont
Montana	Washington
New York	West Virginia
Ohio [legislative]	Wisconsin

Legislative sessions:  In some states, registrations expire at the end of the regular legislative session.  These include Nevada [sessions are held in odd-numbered years] and South Dakota.  In Iowa, executive branch lobbyist registration is valid until the next regular session of the general assembly.

Non-calendar years:  In other states, registrations expire at the end of a year, but that year is defined as other than January 1 to December 31.  These states have the following registration terms:

Colorado [July 1 to July 15 of the subsequent year]	North Dakota [July 1 to June 30]
Kentucky executive [August 1 to July 31]	Virginia [May 1 to April 30]
Maine [December 1 to November 30]	Wyoming [May 1 to April 30]
Maryland [November 1 to October 31]

On-going registrations:  Once you register in the following states, your registration is on-going until you affirmatively terminate.  These include:

Delaware
Federal
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey [a fee is due annually on November 15]
Rhode Island executive

And then there is Arizona:  Just to keep you on your toes, Arizona has a biennial registration where lobbyists renew during November of odd-numbered years, and employers renew during November of even-numbered years.

The Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) will host a campaign finance seminar on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at the OCPF offices located at One Ashburton Place, Room 411 in Boston. Topics under discussion include but are not limited to: filing and disclosure requirements for all types of candidates, PACs and other committees; the application of the campaign finance law to political activity by public employees, including the restriction on employees’ fundraising and on fundraising in government buildings; restrictions on the use of public resources to influence voters in ballot question elections on the local level, and electronic filing.

The seminar begins at 2 p.m. Reservations are not required.

Alabama Governor-elect Robert Bentley wasted no time in declaring ethics reform a top priority when he assumes office in 2011. Bentley stated his preference is to hold a special session of the state legislature within the regular session, scheduled to convene in February, because it would save the taxpayers money.

Bentley’s goals for the special session include increased frequency of reporting political contributions and online publishing of the contributions. The promises of sweeping ethics reform come on the heels of a scandal in which state senators and lobbyists have been charged with bribery and corruption in connection with pending gambling legislation.

This photo of Robert Bentley is is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license by Zwilson14.

In order for the borough of North Arlington to receive $400,000, it must implement pay-to-play laws as one of the conditions for the state’s Transitional Aid to Localities program, which awards grants to the most fiscally challenged municipalities.

Mayor Peter Massa has signed a memorandum of understanding which mandates the borough council pass ordinances limiting awarding public contracts to businesses that have made contributions. Businesses actively contracting with the borough would also be limited from making contributions.

The council has three months to pass the ordinances, in addition to implementing other financial restrictions such as staff reductions and salary freezes, in order to receive the funds.

I know Halloween has passed, but this week I invite all of you to hang out in a graveyard – a political graveyard, anyway.  You won’t find ghosts and goblins at The Political Graveyard Web site, but you will find a trove of political figures past and present – everything the political enthusiasts and experts of American history and politics could need for hours of fun.

The Political Graveyard claims to be “the Internet’s most comprehensive free source for American political biography, listing 217,078 politicians, living and dead.” I believe it. The site was created by Lawrence Kestenbaum, who has put a great deal of time, intelligence, and loving care into the project.

If you already know a politician you would like to look up, say – Theodore Roosevelt, former U.S. Rep. James Traficant, or Harold Stassen, the former Governor of Minnesota who ran for president of the United States nine times, you could use the Alphabetical Index of Politicians. But The Political Graveyard offers many other lists from which to choose that show far more imagination. Consider browsing through the lists of politicians who lost the most elections, who died in office, who survived assassination attempts, or those who participated in dueling!

You can find politicians who were Rhodes Scholars, played professional sports, been up in space, or were born in slavery.  Or how about the ones who received a Nobel Prize, a Pulitzer Prize, or an Olympic Medal?

Gender, religious background, occupation (yes the lobbyists are listed), and ancestry groups are there. Freemasons, Rotary,  Elks, Knights of Columbus, and Knights Templar. It is all there.

Pure fun! Well, I think I have found a new pastime …

Screen captures courtesy of Lawrence Kestenbaum and The Political Graveyard.

On November 2nd, voters approved Constitutional Amendment D by a vote of 67 percent for to 33 percent against. Amendment D establishes a five-member legislative ethics commission with the authority to conduct an independent review of complaints alleging unethical legislative behavior.

The ultimate decision whether to punish or expel a member of either the House or Senate would remain with the member’s chamber. The amendment also prohibits sitting members of the legislature or registered lobbyists from serving on the new commission.

Amendment D takes effect on January 1, 2011.

New York City voters supported, by a vote of 83 percent to 17 percent with 87 percent of precincts reporting, a referendum item which called for several changes to the city charter.  The changes include requiring disclosure of campaign contributions by independent groups and raising the maximum fine for violating conflicts of interest law.  Currently, people and organizations that spend money independently of any candidate to support or oppose political candidates or to influence votes in a referendum are not required to report those expenditures publicly.

The new voter approved law requires any individual or group that spends $1,000 or more to support or oppose a candidate or referendum to disclose the expenditure to the city’s Campaign Finance Board and include in any literature the name of any individual or organization that paid for it.  The law also requires any group spending $5,000 or more to support or oppose a candidate to disclose any organizations that made contributions to that group and any individual who contributed $1,000 or more during the 12-month period preceding the election.

Photo of the New York City Municipal Building by Momos on Wikipedia.

City council now has 90 days to pass a new ordinance which will implement the charter amendment language. Campaign finance contribution limits will increase to $200 for ward candidates and $450 for city-wide candidates. It is anticipated the new legislation will require council to review, and if necessary, amend, the city’s campaign finance legislation every two years beginning in 2012.

A provision is also expected to be made which will allow for public comment on any proposed changes to the city’s campaign finance rules. Finally, the legislation is expected to remove the city’s campaign finance language from the city charter itself. Going forward, campaign finance regulations will be authorized by ordinance.