U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby has held that Maine’s campaign finance reporting law is constitutional.  The law requiring groups that raise more than $5,000 to influence elections to register with the state and disclose donors who make contributions of $100 or more was challenged by the National Organization for Marriage on the basis that the law was vague and overly broad.

The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices investigated the organizations activity, alleging that they had violated Maine campaign finance law by raising and spending more than $5,000 to help overturn the Maine law allowing same-sex marriage but not following the reporting requirements. A lawsuit continues in state court that challenges the state’s ability to investigate violations of the campaign finance law.

Currently, corporations are prohibited from any campaign activity other than those contributions allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its “Citizens United” decision.

Corporations would still be forbidden from contributing to a candidate committee or political party committee.

South Dakota seal from an image of the state flag by Denelson83 on Wikipedia.

Senator Michael G. Waddoups introduced a bill mandating training for all registered lobbyists. SB 251 requires the lieutenant governor to develop and maintain a training course for lobbyists and make the training available on the internet to both lobbyists and the public. The bill also includes a component to help lobbyists understand state campaign finance requirements.

Lobbyists would be required to complete the training course once a year. A lobbyist who does not complete the training required could face a $1,000 fine and suspension of their lobbying license.

Photo of Senator Waddoups courtesy of the Utah Senate Web site.

The House Ethics Committee voted 5-3 against HB 0164, a bill imposing campaign contributions limits. Representative Rebecca Chaves-Houch had formerly introduced the legislation only four days earlier.

Utah presently has no limits to the amounts one can contribute to candidates for state offices. The bill caps contributions to $5,000 for legislative candidates, $10,000 for gubernatorial candidates, and $10,000 to state PACs.

Representative Chaves-Houch intends on reintroducing some version of the bill, possibly next year.

This post follows up a previous article by George Ticoras called “Putting Limits on Utah Contributions” from February 8, 2011.

Photo by Scott Catron on Wikipedia.

Q. As a registered lobbyist, am I allowed to make a personal political contribution to a general assembly member whom I might eventually lobby? Does it make a difference whether I am a constituent of the general assembly member? Is such a contribution reportable?

A. As is customary in the nature of government affairs work, the answer depends upon the state in which you are making the contribution. That means you need to check the rules and regulations on political contributions for each state before you make the contribution. Also, whether such contributions are permitted or reported depends upon the amount of the contribution.

Here are some relevant examples:

• Personal political contributions by a lobbyist are reportable in Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. In some instances, the reporting requirement extends to a member of the lobbyist’s immediate family also making a contribution.
• In Pennsylvania, a registered lobbyist making a personal political contribution must register and report in the same manner required of PACs.
• There is an absolute prohibition on personal political contributions by registered lobbyists in Connecticut and North Carolina.
• In South Carolina, lobbyists are prohibited from making contributions to a candidate or anyone acting on behalf of a candidate if the lobbyist engages in lobbying the public office or public body for which the candidate is seeking election.
• In California, lobbyists may not contribute to state candidates or officeholders, or their controlled committees, if registered to lobby the candidate or officeholder’s agency.
• In Alaska, a lobbyist may not make a contribution to a candidate for office in a district outside the lobbyist’s own voting district. This prohibition continues for one year after a lobbyist’s registration or renewed registration date. A lobbyist who contributes to a legislative candidate must file a report within 30 days after making the contribution.

Political contributions not otherwise prohibited by a registered lobbyist could nonetheless be prohibited based on the particular state’s pay-to-play laws. Also, always make sure there are no restrictions on making the contribution during the legislative session.

Finally, it bears repeating to check the laws in the particular state before you make the contribution.

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.

(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.

In 1998, State and Federal Communications worked with Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic’s blue ribbon committee reviewing campaign contribution limits. Unfortunately, city voters approved very low contribution limits and it has taken 12+ years for a charter change to increase them.

On Monday, city council approved legislation increasing the limits for contributions from individuals for mayoral and at-large council candidates from $300 to $450 and ward council candidates from $100 to $200.

The city will continue to study other potential changes to Akron’s campaign finance guidelines.

Senate Bill 69 would prohibit any lobbyist, principal of a lobbyist, client of a lobbyist, agent of a lobbyist, or political action committee on which a lobbyist sits from making political campaign contributions to the governor, lieutenant governor, or a member of the legislature.

This prohibition would be in effect during any time in which the legislature is in regular or special session.

The measure also defines terms pertinent to the language of the bill, including ‘contribution,’ ‘political action committee,’ and ‘principal of a lobbyist.’

The bill aims to reduce situations where actual or perceived conflicts of interest may be raised.

Satellite photo of Hawaii by NASA, posted on Wikipedia.

Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer has asked the city council to end ‘wheeling’ in the city’s elections. Wheeling is a term used to describe the channeling of money through different political committees to avoid contribution limits.

The mayor also wants an ordinance to limit the amount of contributions an outside PAC may donate to a candidate in a city election and stressed how the former mayor Cammarano’s campaign received more than $100,000 in the last 11 days of his campaign from political committees not from Hoboken.

City councilman Ravinder Bhalla is a sponsor of the proposed legislation.

The state Ethics Commission has released its final promulgated amendments to the state’s ethics rules for 2011.

These amendments, available on the commission’s website, become law on July 1 if no action is taken by the state legislature.

One of the rules set forth this year will allow corporations to make independent expenditures and another will allow PACs to contribute to ballot measure committees.

Image of the Oklahoma flag by Denelson83 on Wikipedia.

The Tennessee Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance introduced new contribution limits for 2011-2012 to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index.

The new limits include a biennial aggregate limit of $113,700 on contributions to State and Local candidates and PACs. Individuals may contribute no more than $44,800 to State and Local candidates and no more than $68,900 to all PACs (including parties) during the two year cycle.

Lobbyist gift limits have increased to $55 per event and lobbyist employers are limited to gifts with a cumulative value of $110 during a calendar year.

Representative Rebecca Chaves-Houch introduced House Bill 0164 limiting political contributions to statewide candidates for office. Presently, there are no limits to the amounts one can contribute to candidates for state offices in Utah.

The bill’s provisions include caps on donations by individual contributors to $5,000 for legislative candidates, $10,000 for gubernatorial candidates, and $10,000 to state PACs.

The bill does not address corporate contributions to candidates, which Utah permits. If passed, the limits would take effect on January 1, 2013.

Photo of the Utah State Capitol Building by Sean Breazeal (Talshiarr) on Wikipedia.

Here is a campaign finance news item from last Friday. According to an article in the New York Times, the Democratic Party has announced it will not use corporate money for their national convention. The article said there will still be a chance for corporate in-kind contributions, and they can still pay for parties on the periphery of the official event.

For the full story, see “Democrats Promise No Corporate Money for Convention” by Michael Shear in the February 4 issue of the New York Times.

Photo of the 2008 Democratic National Convention by Qqqqqq on Wikipedia.

The Federal Election Commission has published the 2011-2012 election cycle contribution limits adjusted for inflation. The revised limits, indexed according to the consumer price index, include raising the amount an individual and certain PACs can contribute to a candidate from $2,400 to $2,500 and to a national party committee from $30,400 to $30,800.

The previous biennial limit of $115,500 has been adjusted upward to $117,000, of which $46,200 may be contributed to candidates and $70,800 total to federal PACs and all other political party committees.

The special session, called by Governor Riley in late December, lasted seven days and saw the passage of several landmark bills, each of which was promptly signed into law.

The most dramatic change concerning lobbyists is the newly enacted expenditure limits.  Previously, lobbyists could spend anything on an official without having to report it until the spending exceeded $250 per day.  Now, lobbyists may only spend $25 on an official for a meal with an annual limit of $150.  For a lobbyist’s employer, the limit is $50 per meal with a $250 annual cap.  This law has been criticized by some as having too many loopholes.  For instance, the limit does not apply to an “educational function” or certain “widely attended” events.  Disclosure of spending at these events is still required when spending exceeds $250 per official.

Lawmakers also passed a ban on PAC-to-PAC transfers of funds.  This, lawmakers hope, will reduce the “shell game” sometimes played which makes it very difficult for the public to track who is actually funding candidates or making expenditures.

Several of the laws passed impacted the actions of state officials directly.  Starting in 2014, a state lawmaker will no longer be allowed to hold another government job.  Additionally, the reforms include a ban on “pass through pork.”  This is a practice whereby state lawmakers could direct an agency to spend money a certain way without legislative approval.  Finally, the Alabama Ethics Commission will be granted subpoena power; this is expected to make enforcement of the laws much easier and effective.

The most controversial bill passed during the session is one banning politically active groups from receiving contributions via payroll deduction from state employees.  This law was decried as an attack on the American Education Association, a group usually linked to Democratic candidates.  Governor Riley, a Republican, defended the bill as a step to prevent misuse of state time and money.

While most agree the reform package is not perfect or all-inclusive, most within the state’s ethics and political circles agree they are a significant step forward at a time when Alabama badly needs one.

Photo of the Alabama Statehouse by Spyder_Monkey on Wikipedia.