Legends Bank is seeking to block enforcement of Missouri’s new ethics law, found in Senate Bill 844, which took effect August 28.  Legends Bank and its president filed suit Monday in Cole County Circuit Court citing language that limits the bank’s right to make political donations.  Senate Bill 844 sought to limit politicians’ ability to conceal the source of money by moving it through several political action committees.

Legends Bank claims that in determining which individuals and entities can donate to political action committees, lawmakers appear to have limited the ability of state-chartered banks to donate.   Republican Senate president pro-tem Charlie Shields, who sponsored Senate Bill 844, stated to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch the goal of the bill was never to stop banks or corporations from making political donations and that the disputed language should be fairly easy to fix.

Photo of the Missouri Capitol by RebelAt of English Wikipedia.

The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought by Colorado Ethics Watch concerning the so-called “magic words” required of political ads. Colorado Ethics Watch filed the complaint against Senate Majority Fund and Colorado Leadership Fund after the two 527 political organizations ran campaign ads supporting state legislative candidates in the 2008 election but did not register as political committees or submit independent expenditure disclosures for the ads.

An Administrative Law Judge determined, and the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed, registration and reporting were not required because the ads did not contain terms such as “vote for” or “defeat.” It is expected the case will be briefed in early 2011, with oral arguments taking place in the spring.

Seal of the State of Colorado by Svgalbertian on Wikipedia.

Governor Bob Riley has called the Alabama state legislature into special session. The lawmakers are expected to convene on December 8, 2010 and take up the issue of ethics reform.

This year, the state was plagued by a scandal in which lobbyists and local businesspeople attempted to or actually did bribe legislators to vote for pro-gambling legislation. During the upcoming session, lawmakers are expected to pass reform reducing the amount a lobbyist may spend on an official without reporting it. Additional changes suggested by the Governor include a ban on PAC-to-PAC transfers of funds and requiring those who lobby the executive branch for contracts to register.

Photo of Governor Bob Riley by MSGT MARK OWEN, USAF on Wikipedia.

Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin is pursuing the creation of a local ethics commission to replace the city’s reliance on the state. Currently, city ethics issues are resolved by South Carolina’s ethics commission. Mayor Benjamin believes reliance on a local commission with local ordinances would better serve Columbia and its city council.

The seven member commission would be made up of four residents from each of the council’s four political districts, a certified public accountant, a local business owner and an attorney. The attorney, who would serve as chairman, must not have done business with the city.

Photo of downtown Columbia by Akhenaton06 on Wikipedia.

The Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board has hired Megan Tooker as its new executive director. Tooker was unanimously selected by the six-member board and will assume the role on January 1, 2011. Before joining the agency, she graduated from Drake law school and clerked for former state supreme court Justice Michael Streit.

The outgoing director, Charlie Smithson, is stepping down from the position to become the Iowa House’s new chief clerk. Smithson had been with the board since 1998 and was originally its legal counsel. The Ethics and Campaign Disclosure board administers and advises on state lobbying, campaign and ethics laws and, to a certain extent, local ethics rules.

State and Federal Communications Research Associate George Ticoras alerted me to a video from the American League of Lobbyists called “What is lobbying and why is it important?” I thought I would share it with you!

The video says: “On behalf of all Americans who have a stake in their government, the League addresses challenges that affect the rights of individuals and groups to make their views known about issues that affect our country. It provides a voice for lobbyists and works to ensure that those who engage in lobbying follow established ethics and rules.”

ALL President Dave Wenhold added:”Our mission is to enhance the development, professionalism, and high ethical standards for the advocates in the public policy arena.” Enjoy the video:

I did an informal survey here at our office and asked: “Do you you know when the first woman was elected to U.S. Congress?”  The answers ranged from “I have no idea” to  “sometime in the 1960’s.” To be honest, I wasn’t sure either and that bothered me. Something that important is something I should know, so I found a great Web site called Women in Congress. Hosted by the U.S. Office of the Clerk, Women in Congress charts the progress of women from having no representation prior to 1917, to having a Speaker of the House of Representatives exactly 90 years later.

In 1917, Jeannette Rankin was the first woman to be elected to Congress. A Republican from Montana, Rankin was an activist for the woman suffrage movement and she was a pacifist – she was the only representative to vote against the United States’ entry into both World War I and World War II. “I may be the first woman member of Congress, but I won’t be the last,” Rankin said when she was elected.

Rebecca Latimer Felton was the first U.S. Senator, serving in 1922 at age 87 years. She was described as “outspoken, determined, and irascible!”

Every one of the bios in Women in Congress has an important story to tell. “Battling Mary” Norton, who served from 1925 to 1951, fought for the rights of the working class. Norton personally campaigned to get the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 out onto the floor for a vote, and it passed. The law set a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour, established the 40 hour work week, and outlawed child labor (can you imagine). What a heroic woman. She said, “I’m prouder of getting that bill through the House than anything else I’ve done in my life.”

Barbara Jordan was a Democratic Representative from Texas from 1973 to 1979. A leader in the Civil Rights movement, Jordan suffered from multiple sclerosis. She championed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Many will remember seeing her on television giving a powerful speech before the House Judiciary Committee supporting the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.

Women in Congress offers historical essays, fascinating artifacts, and lots of educational resources. Now everyone can become an expert on the role women in Congress. I know I have no excuse!

Photos Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

At the heart of the controversy is the Government Accountability Board’s (G.A.B.) rule which took effect August 1, 2010. The rule says advertisements broadcast in the weeks before an election must disclose their funding sources even if they do not expressly advocate a vote for or against a party or candidate.

Prior to the amendment, groups could evade disclosure requirements by running advertisements disguised as issue advocacy, so-called “phony issue ads”. Such ads were not considered political in nature as they did not contain what G.A.B. spokesperson Reid Magney calls the “magic words”: specific calls for viewers to vote for, elect, or approve a given candidate. The G.A.B.’s rule was meant close the “phony issue ad” loophole.

The Wisconsin legislature, for its part, permitted the G.A.B. rule to come into force on August 1, 2010. Since the rule’s effective date, however, groups across the state have claimed the rule infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech. Several lawsuits, including two in federal court, have been filed challenging the rule’s constitutionality.

The judges in both federal cases have stayed the suits filed in their courts pending a resolution in the state case. Oral arguments begin in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on March 9, 2011.

Maryland General Assembly Delegate Justin Ross will introduce legislation 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.

In addition to the officials recusing themselves, developers would have to provide detailed information about all contributions to individual and shared accounts when they are requesting a land use decision from a council.

The enhancements to the system are aimed toward improving transparency and easing the public’s fear of “back room” politics.  It is no coincidence that the lobbying law changes come at the same time the state is strengthening ethics rules in other arenas.  The state recently passed new disclosure requirements for contacts with procurement officials.  Additionally, Illinois’ campaign finance laws will feature contribution limits in 2011 and quarterly PAC reporting.   The improvements to the state’s lobbying regulations are part of an overall climate of increasing disclosure around the United States.  Several other states, including Utah and Georgia, have made similar changes in state lobbying law this year.

The first change to the rules, which is already known by most people impacted by it, relates to the registration fee.  Illinois initially sought to increase this fee to $1,000 per lobbyist and per organization employing a lobbyist.  Thus, a company with two state-level lobbyists would have been charged $3,000 per year.   The ACLU sued for and was granted an injunction on this fee.  Essentially, the state agreed Illinois could not demonstrate the increase in cost was necessary to administer the Lobbyist Act.  Additionally, the ACLU had raised a First Amendment establishment clause argument because the bill granted exemptions to certain religious lobbying and thus “demonstrated a preference for religious speech over non-religious speech.”  Eventually, the state and the ACLU agreed to a fee of $300 and the suit was dropped.   Additionally, lobbyists are required to complete an online ethics training course within 30 days of registration.

Lobbyists will have to report more frequently in 2011 and beyond.  The lobbying dates used to be tied to whether the legislature was in session but are now semi-monthly, regardless.  In 2010, while the litigation on the Act was pending, reporting was done essentially as soon as the Secretary of State’s Index Department was able to receive them in the midst of the judicial and legislative melee.  Lobbyists filed a report on September 30 for the first half of 2010, and now must report second-half expenditures on January 15, 2011.  Starting in 2011, reports are due twice per month.  A report for the first 15 days is due on each 20^th, and a report covering the 16^th through the end of each month is due on the following 5^th.  While this is very cumbersome, it is at least consistent.  The smaller reporting periods should make the information to be reported very manageable.

One feature of Illinois’ lobbying seen in a few other states is the provision relating to notification of officials.  Previously, if an official were set to appear on a lobbyist’s report because that lobbyist made an expenditure on the official, the lobbyist was required to give the official notice of this fact 25 days before the report was due and again 30 days after the report was filed.  Under the new changes, the 30-day post-notification remains but the pre-notification is changed.  Now, lobbyists must give the official “contemporaneous written notification” of a reportable expenditure made on the official’s behalf.

Photo of Gov. Pat Quinn by Chris Eaves on Wikipedia.

Q. Can I hire a federal, state, or local official who just left office to represent our interests before his or her former colleagues?

A. While the answer depends on the jurisdiction, the trend is definitely to increase the restrictions on the ability of former elected officials and government employees to seek employment as lobbyists after leaving their government positions.

Most commonly, these restrictions take the form of a waiting period during which the former official is not permitted to influence actions over which he or she exerted some power or influence.  Ostensibly, the waiting period allows this power or influence to dissipate.  It also allows time for the specific issues the former official influenced to move through the system, under the theory that the former official’s influence will be lessened on issues he or she did not directly handle.

The revolving door restrictions placed upon officials in New Jersey are fairly typical.  In that state, former members of the legislature, the governor, and heads of principal departments of the executive branch are prohibited from registering as lobbyists for one year after leaving office.  Anyone knowingly or willfully violating the revolving door restrictions is subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 and can be barred from engaging in lobbying in the state for up to an additional five years.  The law assigns the Election Law Enforcement Commission the power to hold hearings regarding possible violations and assess the enumerated penalties if the violations are found to have occurred.

Most jurisdictions that have introduced ethics legislation in recent years have included revolving door provisions, as the Indiana General Assembly did this year with the passage of House Bill 1001.  Because of the increasing prevalence and importance of these laws, State and Federal Communications will be focusing on this issue and addressing it in our Executive Source on Lobbying Laws.

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.

Similar legislation was voted down last month. If the ordinance passes, anyone who lobbies the county board on behalf of someone else will be required to register annually and report on whose behalf he or she is lobbying. The call for lobbyist disclosure in Orange County comes after a county grand jury issued a report critical of the county supervisors for not having any lobbyist disclosure requirements. Several local political figures have implicitly threatened to have a lobbyist registration law placed on an upcoming ballot if the supervisors do not create it themselves.

Photo of Newport Center skyline and Santa Ana mountains by Brian 1078 on Wikipedia.

The Texas Ethics Commission has issued a public notice to all lobbyists registered with the commission. The commission advises all filers to install the newest lobby electronic filing software, version 2.5.3, prior to filing a lobby activities report. In Texas, lobbyists required to register with the commission may include corporations, partnerships, association or other types of business entities as well as individuals.

The new software will be available for download on the Ethics Commission website beginning December 1, 2010 at: www.ethics.state.tx.us/whatsnew/elf_info_lobby.htm

Image of the Seal of the State of Texas by Juan Vega on Wikipedia.

The United States Supreme Court will again review Arizona’s attempt to level the playing field for political candidates, agreeing to determine the constitutionality of Arizona’s law to distribute campaign subsidies to publicly funded candidates who face big-spending opponents.

In June, the Supreme Court blocked a portion of Arizona’s Clean Elections program, which authorized the state to provide “matching funds” to those candidates who face opponents spending large amounts of their own money or outside groups that target them.  The court combined two cases, Arizona Free Enterprise, et al v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett, and will hear arguments in the spring of 2011.

Picture of the U.S. Supreme Court by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.