The FEC has released an Interpretive Rule Regarding Electronic Contributor Redesignations. A contribution made for one election may be applied to another election if the redesignation is in writing and signed by the contributor, according to commission regulations.

The commission has found a certain method of electronic redesignation meets this requirement. The method, described in the commission’s interpretive rule, requires the contributor visiting a website to fill out an electronic form authorizing the redesignation and to verify their identity by entering their personal information, including his or her first and last name, address, phone number, e-mail address, occupation, and name of his or her employer. The commission found this process sufficiently equivalent to a written signature.

The complaint filed by the American Education Association seeks to have the law overturned on grounds of violating free speech and equal protection.

Even though the law prohibits the use of payroll deductions from all public employees for such activities, the teachers’ group says the law, passed and supported by Republicans, is discriminatory and specifically aimed at them because the A.E.A. has traditionally been a strong supporter of Democratic candidates.

The statute in question has been a source of controversy since it was passed in December during a special legislative session which saw an overhaul of several aspects of the Alabama ethics laws.



On March 14, Politico published an  interview of political consultant Joe Trippi.  He speaks about what should be clear to everyone after the 2008 presidential election – social media has changed the rules of engagement in political campaigning.

What will startle many people is his set of predictions: By 2012 or 2016, Trippi sees an end to the two-party domination of presidential elections (thanks to social media) and a level of fund raising that will eclipse what we saw with the Obama campaign. He also sees such funding going to a third-party candidate who is smart enough to use social media in an innovative way. The result could be a great political upset for Democrats and Republicans.

Whatever unfolds in the coming year, the missing piece from the discussion is consideration of the ramifications for campaign finance regulation. In the scenario  Trippi depicts, how will the new issues of advertising on social networks be handled? How will the source of funding be disclosed for a Facebook or Twitter message that is primarily a political advertisement and could social media efforts fall under the category of in-kind contributions?

The developments could complicate state elections, too. We have Maryland’s State Board of Elections and California’s Fair Political Practices Commission as examples of the first efforts at the regulation of political campaigning on the internet. I wonder how many oversight agencies will get out ahead of the issue by the next election?

For the Politico interview, read “Joe Trippi: Social media will kill two-party system” by Mike Zapler.

Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 206(4)-5, regarding political contributions to government entities from investment advisors, takes effect today. Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) makes it unlawful for advisors of hedge funds, private equity funds, and certain other investments, to provide investment advisory services for compensation to a government entity within two years after a contribution to an official of the government entity is made by the investment adviser, a covered associate, or its PAC.

On September 13, addition rules take effect, including prohibiting third parties from soliciting government business, and regulating what investment pool advisers may do.

The Hartford city council is debating a proposal to ban campaign contributions from contractors who have business deals with the city. Proposed more than two years ago, the measure is now moving forward after receiving word from the city’s corporation counsel assuring the legality of such a measure.

There are still details to be determined concerning the measure, including who will be expected to enforce the measure. A vote is expected by the end of March.

Aerial photo of downtown Hartford by Sage Ross on Wikipedia.

Voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the city charter placing serious restrictions on the ability of those doing business or seeking to do business with the city to make campaign contributions.

The pay-to-play rule, which passed with a vote of 75 percent in favor, will prohibit anyone bidding on a contract with Los Angeles worth $100,000 or more from donating to or fundraising for city officials with the authority to approve the contract on which he or she is bidding.

Photo of Los Angeles City Hall by Brion VIBBER on Wikipedia.

A bill prohibiting unions from making paycheck deductions for political activities has passed the Kansas house and is now in the state senate. The bill would also ban public employee unions from endorsing candidates.

Opponents of the bill claim the legislation is an attack on the ability of workers to organize and participate as a group in the political process, while those in favor of it say this is simply an effort to help workers who do not support their union’s political activity.

A similar law passed in Alabama during a December special session outlawed payroll deduction contributions to PACs by public employees. That law, passed by Republicans, was harshly criticized as “partisan politics” because the PACs traditionally supported by public employee payroll deductions leaned overwhelmingly Democrat.

Photo of the Kansas State Capitol by Nikopoley on Wikipedia.

Secretary of State Ken Bennett has released contribution limits for the 2011-2012 election cycle.  Under the new limits individuals and noncertified political committees cannot contribute more than $872 to a statewide candidate, $430 to a non-statewide local candidate, and $424 to a non-statewide legislative candidate.

Certified committees or “Super PACs” are now limited to contributions of $4,352 to a statewide candidate, $2,170 to a non-statewide local candidate, and $1,736 to a non-statewide legislative candidate.   Individuals are now limited to contributions totaling $6,100 in a calendar year to political committees or candidates.

The Secretary of State biennially adjusts campaign contribution limits based upon the consumer price index.

Republican Senator Jake Knotts and Democratic Senator Vincent Sheheen have announced they are submitting a bill banning leadership PACs in the Senate. Leadership PACs normally may accept contributions from lobbyists and have different contribution amounts than other campaign accounts.

Senator Sheheen said, “I want to help restore voter’s trust in government. This bill is one step to make sure elected officials answer to the voters, not wealthy contributors.”

Currently there is no member of the Senate who has a Leadership PAC.

While attending the 35^th Annual Public Affairs Council PAC Conference in Miami last week, there were many questions about the impact of Citizens United in the states.

Last year, State and Federal Communications prepared a report, and we continue to update it, for our clients to understand how it has been applied.

Follow this link for the report. If you have any further questions, don’t hesitate to send an email to our Research Manager John Cozine.

Representative Keith Grover has introduced a bill allowing for some campaign contributions to be made during legislative sessions. HB 395 allows for accepting a campaign contribution when the Legislature is in session for an official who is a candidate for federal elective office. The contribution must be placed in a separate account specifically designated for the candidate’s campaign account for federal office.

Currently, no contributions may be made when the Legislature is convened in an annual general session, veto override session, or a special session convened before July 1st of a general election year.

Photo of Rep. Keith Grover courtesy of the Utah House of Representatives website.

Robert W. Hayes, Jr., Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee has introduced a bill to redefine the definitions of committees involved in political campaigns and to add a definition of ‘independent expenditure committee.’ Senate Bill 0593 is a response to South Carolina Citizens for Life, Inc. v Krawcheck, a federal court decision finding the state’s definition of committee unconstitutional.

Based on the court decision, the State Ethics Commission announced in October of 2010 it would not enforce provisions of the state law concerning making independent expenditures. Among the refined definitional changes in the bill is wording specifically detailing the major purpose of the committees, usually for the support or opposition of a ballot issue or election of a candidate. In the bill, an ‘independent expenditure committee’ is defined as an association, a club, an organization, a group of persons or a person whose major purpose is to support or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate to elective office and makes independent expenditures in excess of $5,000 during an election cycle.

This post is an update to two previous Lobby Comply articles by George Ticoras:

“Ethics Commission Not Appealing Decision Striking Down Definition of Committee” from October 19

“South Carolina Defines Committee Too Broadly” from September 20

The new limits, which will be in effect through February 24, 2013, feature very modest increases in each category. For instance, an individual may now donate $11,543.70 to a PAC, a statewide candidate, or state-level legislative candidate; the previous amount was $11,395.56. Maximum individual contributions to statewide parties increased from $34,186.68 to $34,631.11.

Contribution limits for judicial candidates will remain at current levels.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Human Life of Washington challenging Washington’s campaign finance disclosure law.  The Supreme Court let stand without comment a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the state’s disclosure requirements for political committees, independent expenditures and political advertising.

Human Life of Washington challenged the requirements as a violation of its free-speech rights, as it sought to keep donors in a 2008 campaign opposing an assisted-suicide ballot measure confidential.   The group argued that it was not required to register as a political-action committee and disclose donors because its advertisements did not specifically reference the ballot measure.

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