Anyone running for election to the boards of California’s two pension funds will have to disclose their campaign contributions, according to a bill that just passed the California Assembly.

The bill now heads to the senate.

According to the Associated Press:

“Under the bill, candidates would have to disclose any contribution of $5,000 or more within 10 days of receiving it and any contribution of $1,000 or more within 24 hours during the period immediately before an election.”

Here is the Associated Press source article by Cathy Bussewitz: “Disclosure considered for California pension boards”

Photo of the CalPERS headquarters by Coolcaesar on Wikipedia.

These types of indirect efforts, also known as “grassroots lobbying,” encompass a wide variety of activities.  Sanctions, penalties, and fines arise when organizations fail to realize that their efforts to persuade the general population on various issues may possibly be considered lobbying.

The good news is that many states are explicit as to whether they consider grassroots efforts lobbying.  States like Arizona and Ohio define lobbying as direct communication with legislators, thereby excluding grassroots.  States that do regulate grassroots activity, for example, Mississippi and New Hampshire, use language such as soliciting others and indirect communication with legislators to indicate that grassroots efforts require registration.

Reporting grassroots activity is often more complicated than reporting direct lobbying expenditures.  In most states, reporting direct lobbying expenses is straightforward.  It is not difficult to determine what is an expenditure spent on an official.  Reporting grassroots costs becomes confusing because grassroots lobbying often consists of mass media campaigns, along with websites and e-mails.  It is difficult to tell exactly which costs are included in the registration and reporting thresholds.  For example, in the case of a website, do you include the salary of the person creating the website, the cost of web access, or the cost of any outsourced work? (more…)

The suit filed by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) alleged Maine’s laws governing political action committee definitions, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The plaintiffs also raised a First Amendment challenge alleging Maine’s regulations imposed excessive burdens which would only serve to chill its political speech.

Judge Hornby did agree with some of the plaintiff’s allegations and proceeded to strike down Maine’s rules requiring 24-hour disclosure of independent expenditures over $250 as “impermissibly burdensome”. As well, state law’s use of the words “influence” and “influence in any way” were struck down as being unconstitutionally vague.

Judge Hornby went on to uphold the bulk of Maine’s campaign finance laws concluding:

“Otherwise, Maine’s laws governing PACs, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements are constitutional, and survive NOM’s challenges they are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and they impose excessive burdens that chill NOM’s speech preceding this fall’s elections and thereafter.”

The plaintiffs are expected to pursue an expedited appeal to the U.S. First Circuit located in Boston.

This week we highlight The Lobbying and Policy Advocacy Project, a site hosted by Penn State University. The project asks the question: What has been the true effect of lobbying on policy making in American government?

After ten years of work, the authors propose that the answer is – it has not had much effect at all. Running counter to what many people think, the project’s resulting book: Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses and Why is saying lobbyists – most of the time – are not getting their way with Congress.

Are lobbyists wasting their time?

For a good analysis of the project, here is an article published in Miller-McCune called “K Street and the Status Quo,” by Melinda Burns.

Unlike many previous studies that looked at cases of lobbying and legislation connected with scandal, The Lobbying and Policy Advocacy Project used nearly one hundred cases that were randomly selected. A great feature of their Web site is a page with links to each of those random sampling case studies. This is a resource for further research on lobbying:

“Researchers and students interested in lobbying should be able to conduct a wealth of research simply by comparing the cases we have documented here,” states the Lobbying and Policy Advocacy Project.

The site also has a page listing all of the publications related to the study. The principle investigators on the project are Frank Baumgartner from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Jeffrey Berry from Tufts, Marie Hojnacki from Penn State, David Kimball from Missouri – St. Louis, and Beth Leach from Rutgers.

As Burns’ article points out, there are those who disagree with the findings of the study. One of the enduring questions after reading Lobbying and Policy Change would have to be – if the millions spent on lobbying were not paying off in the long term, why does it go on?

Are lobbyists wasting their time? Check out this this site and see how a new conversation has started!

A special thanks to Jim Sedor for pointing me in the direction of this study.

The New York Commission on Public Integrity has published Notices of Proposed Rulemaking in the New York State Register to add Title 19 NYCRR Parts 933 and 934. Part 933 governs gift restrictions for state officers and employees, while part 934 governs lobbyists and their clients.

A period for comment is available until September 25, 2010. Those wishing to submit comments may e-mail them to kburgess@nyintegrity.org. Further, those wishing to view the proposed rules can find them at www.nyintegrity.org/law/regulations.html.

According to public filings, more than 130 registered lobbyists gave contributions toward 2010 campaigns. Republicans, who control the House and Senate, received about $190,000, while Democrats got almost $155,000. Another $13,000 went to nonpartisan judicial candidates.

Five statewide candidates each have received more than $20,000 in contributions from registered lobbyists, with Lt. Gov. Jari Askins leading the way at more than $36,000. Askins won a narrow victory over Attorney General Drew Edmonds in the Democratic primary for governor. Edmondson received more than $28,000 from registered lobbyists. The contributions from lobbyists, however, are a small share of overall fundraising for those candidates; the Askins and Edmondson campaigns have each raised more than $2 million.

Dear Clients:

The date of our utility company’s planned power outage has changed from Friday, August 20, to Friday, August 27, and I want to let you know immediately.

I sent you an e-mail late on Monday about our office closing this Friday, August 20, due to a planned power outage in our section of the City of Akron. Just today, however, our local electric utility company told us the forced outage will be one week later than originally planned.

Please note: the outage will begin Friday, August 27 at 1 p.m. and last until Sunday. We must shut off all electric-powered devices in our building during this time.

Those of you who use our online compliance information services through our website will not be able to access those services from 1 p.m. on August 27 until Sunday, August 29.

Additionally, this planned blackout will affect our telephone system. If you have routine business to conduct with us over the phone, I ask you call us either before 1 p.m. on Friday, August 27, or beginning at 8 a.m. on Monday, August 30.

If you have an emergency and need to talk to us during this time, please call our main telephone number at 330-761-9960. I will have our main number forwarded to my cell phone and will take your call.

Any e-mails you send to us during the power blackout will go to an outside computer server and will be saved on this server. We will review your e-mails on August 30, and respond to any of your needs.

Once again, I apologize for this inconvenience—and also for having to tell you about it twice. This situation, including the utility’s scheduling of the planned outage, remains beyond our control. If you have questions or concerns, please call us.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Z. Bartz, President and CEO
State and Federal Communications, Inc.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: marketing@stateandfed.com.

Q. I attended the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures. While there, I took a group of legislators from various states to dinner and picked up the tab. Most of the legislators were accompanied by spouses. In those jurisdictions requiring disclosure of this dinner expenditure, must I also disclose the amount spent on the spouse?

A. Almost all states requiring disclosure of food and beverage expenditures incurred on behalf of reportable officials also require disclosure of the amount spent on the official’s spouse or immediate family member. However, there are exceptions.

• In Idaho, the lobbying law does not require disclosure of expenditures for spouses and family members of legislators. However, it is common practice for lobbyists to report such expenditures anyway.

• In Michigan, food and beverage expenditures on behalf of spouses or family members are not reportable. However, travel expenditures greater than $725 on behalf of spouses or family members are reportable.

• In Montana, a principal is not required to report expenditures made on behalf of a spouse or immediate family member of a legislator, public officer, or employee.

• In Rhode Island, expenditures made on behalf of family members are not reportable as lobbyist expenditures, but are reported by elected officials.

• In Vermont, expenditures on behalf of a spouse or immediate family member are not reportable.

(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 amendment would increase the amounts an individual may contribute to a ward council candidate from $100 to $200 and at-large council and mayoral candidates from $300 to $450. The proposed amendment would also remove campaign finance language currently in the city charter.

If approved, council would have to replace the campaign finance charter provisions with an ordinance within three months time. Finally, council would be required to review campaign finance issues on a biennial basis with provisions made for public hearings as part of the review process.

Akron voters will vote on the proposed campaign finance charter amendment November 2nd.

To our valued clients:

Our office will have to close Friday, August 20, at 1 p.m. and this will affect your computer and telephone access/communications.

Our local electric utility company informed us it needs to do some important work on its main underground service line near our offices. Because of this, the utility will shut off electricity to our part of the City of Akron beginning Friday afternoon, August 20.

We must shut off all electric-powered devices in our building during this time.

Once our office closes August 20 at 1 p.m., those of you who use our online compliance information services through our website will not be able to access those services until Sunday, August 22.

Additionally, this planned blackout will affect our telephone system. If you have routine business to conduct with us over the phone, I ask you call us either before 1 p.m. on Friday, August 20, or beginning Monday, August 23, at 8 a.m.

If you have an emergency and need to talk to us during this time, please call our main telephone number at 330-761-9960. I will have our main number forwarded to my cell phone and will take your call.

Any e-mails you send to us during the power blackout will go to an outside computer server and saved on this server. We will review your e-mails Monday, and respond to any of your needs.

I apologize for this inconvenience, but the situation is beyond our control. If you have any concerns before the planned power outage occurs, please call us.

Elizabeth Z. Bartz, President and CEO
State and Federal Communications, Inc.

The Illinois Secretary of State has mailed invoices for the revised lobbyist registration fee.

According to the Index Department, the invoices were sent on August 10, 2010 and the $300 fee is due on September 9, 2010. This invoice must accompany the payment.

The Connecticut House of Representatives voted to override Governor M. Jodi Rell’s veto of the bill designed to reinstate the public election financing program, which had been previously limited by a federal court decision. The state senate had already voted to override the veto.

The immediate effect of the vote is to provide gubernatorial candidate Dan Malloy with six million dollars from the Citizens’ Election Program, twice as much as he was originally scheduled to receive.

Until now, those interested in finding out how much candidates for regional office had raised and where the money came from had to take a trip to the registrar’s office, pour through paper records, and pay photocopying fees.

Assistant Registrar Michael Vu says the county has earmarked $100,000 for a contract to put the information online. The Registrar plans to have the first batch of disclosures on the site in October.

You can read more about the San Diego County Registrar of Voters at their Web site.

Rule 4.4 continues to bar judicial candidates from personally receiving or soliciting campaign contributions, but, under the revisions announced Wednesday, two new exceptions are available to judicial candidates. First, a judicial candidate may make a general request for campaign contributions when speaking to an audience of twenty or more persons. Second, a judicial candidate may sign letters soliciting campaign contributions if the letters are for distribution by the judicial candidate’s campaign committee and the letters direct contributions are to be sent to the campaign committee and not the judicial candidate.

The Justices voted 4-1 to amend Rule 4.4 with Justice Paul Pfeifer voting no and Chief Justice Eric Brown and Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger not participating as both are on the ballot this November. The Supreme Court’s move took place in response to a U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which struck down similar rules for judicial candidates in Kentucky.

Here is the text from the announcement on the Ohio Supreme Court Web site:

The amended solicitation rule continues to bar judicial candidates from personally soliciting or receiving campaign contributions, but establishes two new exceptions to the personal solicitation ban. … Those exceptions are:

• “A judicial candidate may make a general request for campaign contributions when speaking to an audience of twenty or more individuals;”
• “A judicial candidate may sign letters soliciting campaign contributions if the letters are for distribution by the judicial candidate’s campaign committee and the letters direct contributions to be sent to the campaign committee and not to the judicial candidate.”

The amendments to Rule 4.4 became effective on August 12, 2010.

Photo of the Ohio Judicial Center.