Ninety-nine percent of expenditures went to the Fall general election. Corporations and other organizations registered with the G.A.B., so-called 1.91 organizations, spent $2,499,494. Labor union PACs spent $1,688,880 with corporation PACs spending $1,950,524. Other committee types spent $3,791,573 for a grand total of independent expenditures for the Fall 2010 Elections of: $9,930,472.

“This is the first time corporations and organizations other than PACs have been required to report spending on political campaigns, “ said Kevin Kennedy, director and general counsel of the G.A.B. “This shows the importance of disclosure of political activity. And yet, so much more campaign spending was not required to be disclosed”.

You can read the G.A.B.’s news release here. Data on independent expenditures is available to the public in Wisconsin’s Campaign Finance Information System at: http://cfis.wi.gov.

Photo of the Wisconsin State Capitol at night by Darin ten Bruggencate on Wikipedia.

The Federal Election Commission issued Advisory Opinion 2010-23 denying a request allowing for political contributions to be made through cell phone texting. CTIA, a nonprofit trade association representing the wireless communications industry, proposed a program where political contributions could be made by texting five or six digit code numbers in the same manner which contributions are made for charitable donations. As proposed by CTIA, the contribution would be made at the time the phone user pays their monthly bill which would include the charge from the text pledge.

Over a 30-day period, a connection aggregator would collect contributions from all wireless service providers and then transfer the funds to the particular political committee. The Commission found the time frame for contributions to be forwarded to political committees would take longer than permissible under the law, contributions would not be segregated from other corporate funds, and CTIA’s safeguards to ensure the contributions were not from impermissible sources were inadequate.

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board provided guidance on questions relating to funding of recount efforts, in light of the gubernatorial recount scheduled to begin November 29^th.

The board concluded that contributions to a recount fund made by a candidate’s principal campaign committee, a party unit, or a political committee do not require registration and reporting in accordance with Minnesota law.  The board clarified that this opinion does not allow a recount fund to accept contributions from lobbyists or lobbyist principals without further seeking an Advisory Opinion from the Board concerning the application of Minnesota’s gift law.

Map of Minnesota from the National Atlas of the United States on Wikipedia.

Citing extensively to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, King Street Patriots, with the aid of Indiana attorney James Bopp, allege Texas law governing campaign finance contributions is unconstitutional. King Street Patriots claim Texas’s general ban on corporate political contributions violate the principles established in Citizens United because it permits non-corporate groups and individuals to make political contributions, but bans corporations from making the same speech.

The claim is also advanced Texas’s ban violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendments because it creates an unconstitutional content and speaker-based restriction on speech.King Street Patriots have also targeted Texas law’s reporting requirements associated with direct campaign expenditures by individuals as well as the 30 and 60-day blackout provisions banning contributions by political committees which form close to election dates.

Finally, The King Street Patriots allege Texas law unconstitutionally burdens the free speech of individuals by imposing the same reporting burdens on individuals who wish to make direct campaign contributions over $100 as are associated with political committees conducting a similar activity. The case is currently pending in Travis County District Court.

The Fair Political Practices Commission passed rules late last week to regulate electronic communications and internet advertisements in the same manner as traditional media. Campaigns and those making independent expenditures will be required to place disclaimers and disclosures in text messages, e-mail, and other electronic advertisements to the extent it is practical.

If size or character-limit constraints make the full disclosure unrealistic, the ad must at least include the candidate or committee’s FPPC number and, if possible, a link containing the full campaign finance information. These new rules include exceptions for uncompensated and other grassroots internet activity in the interest of keeping the internet a prime forum for political activity and discussion among citizens.

Image of the Seal of the State of California by Zscout370 on Wikipedia.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Under the process in place for changing these rules, the proposals will be sent to the state legislature who will either approve or override them. The approved rules become law on July 1 of each year.

The highlights of this year’s proposals include changes to bring Oklahoma law into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, and the abrogation of a rule restricting PAC contributions to ballot-measure committees. The restrictions on contributions to ballot committees have not been enforced in several years because they are unconstitutional.

Photo of the Oklahoma State Capitol copyright © Caleb Long on Wikipedia.

Montana Shrugged, a tea party group, filed suit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Billings, naming as defendants the state political practices commissioner and Attorney General Steve Bullock.  The lawsuit, filed with the help of the James Madison Center for Free Speech in Terre Haute, Ind., says Montana laws requiring financial reporting by political committees and corporations are unconstitutionally vague.

Montana Attorney General Bullock stated the lawsuit is part of a nationwide plot to torpedo state laws that require public reporting on who funds political campaigns.  The lawsuit specifically challenges Montana’s restrictions on corporate contributions after a Montana court ruling last month overturned a law barring corporate independent expenditures and upheld the state’s restrictions on corporate contributions to political candidates.

Photo of the State capitol in Helena by Monty Johnson on Wikipedia.

Now, Lt. Governor Greg Bell has informed the county parties they are not required to file. Going forward, only registered political parties will be required to file financial disclosure statements. Under state law, county parties are not required to register with the state. This new guidance runs contrary to previous statements which said all state and county parties were required to file disclosure statements.

The Salt Lake County Democratic Party has indicated it disagrees with the decision by the Lt. Governor’s office and plans to pursue the matter further. At this time, though, its legal options are unclear as the Utah Supreme Court has so far refused to hear their case. For its part, the Lt. Governor’s office plans to ask the legislature this coming January for a change in state law reflecting the new disclosure decision.