August 26, 2010 •
Ballot Measure 1 Fails Decisively
A ballot initiative in Alaska to put limits on lobbying and campaign donations was overwhelmingly defeated during the state’s Tuesday primary.
Ballot Measure 1 was touted as a way to increase transparency in lobbying and end “pay to play” politics. The measure was strongly and publicly opposed by unions, local governments, and business groups who were concerned the measure would have quieted the voice of many Alaskans in the political arena.
For further reading:
“Ballot Measure 1 soundly rejected,” by Lisa Demer in the Anchorage Daily News.
“Ballot Measure 1 rejected by wide margin,” by Ted Land on KTUU.com.
August 25, 2010 •
The DISCLOSE ACT: An Overview
The DISCLOSE Act, or the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, has been the source of controversy and argument this past summer.
The Act was introduced as a response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. It passed the House, but failed in the Senate before the August recess. It is headed back to the floor for a vote next month when the Senate returns.
The Act would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act as follows:
- Prohibit foreign-controlled domestic corporations from making contributions and expenditures;
- Require that prior to making any contribution or expenditure, the highest ranking official of a corporation must file a certification with the FEC that they are not prohibited from making the contribution or expenditure;
- Declare that a domestic corporation is permitted to create and solicit contributions for a separate segregated fund, as long as a foreign national does not contribute to or have any power or control over the fund;
- Require that any person or corporation that makes an independent expenditures of more than $10,000:
- File a disclosure report within 24 hours of the expenditure; and
- File a new report each time they make or contract to make another expenditures of $10,000 or more;
- Require that certain radio or television ads include a statement identifying the name of the committee responsible for it; and
- Require corporations, labor organization, non-profits, and political organizations to report additional information on their independent expenditure reports, including certain transfers of money.
Photo by Diliff on Wikipedia.
August 24, 2010 •
Pension Board Candidates to Disclose Campaign Finance Activity
California campaign finance bill passes the Assembly and now goes to the Senate.
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.
August 20, 2010 •
Federal District Court Issues Ruling in Maine Campaign Finance Lawsuit
Federal District Judge D. Brock Hornby issued his ruling Thursday in a lawsuit challenging Maine’s campaign finance laws.
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.
August 17, 2010 •
Akron Campaign Finance Charter Amendment on Fall Ballot
Akron City Council voted Monday to place a campaign finance charter amendment before the voters this fall.
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.
August 13, 2010 •
Connecticut House Overrides Rell’s Veto
The latest news on the bill to fix the Citizens’ Election Program in Connecticut.
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.
August 13, 2010 •
San Diego County to Publish Campaign Contributions Online
The San Diego County Registrar of Voters plans to launch an online database of campaign contributions in time for the November election.
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.
August 13, 2010 •
Ohio Supreme Court: Judicial candidates may seek contributions
The Supreme Court of Ohio has amended the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct regarding rules governing the solicitation of campaign contributions by judicial candidates.
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.
August 11, 2010 •
Wisconsin G.A.B. Settles Issue-Ad Lawsuit
The Government Accountability Board (G.A.B.) has settled the lawsuit brought by One Wisconsin Now and Wisconsin Club for Growth over the board’s issue advocacy regulations.
Per the terms of a settlement reached Tuesday, the G.A.B. will not enforce regulations requiring groups who run issue ads to disclose their financing if the ads they paid for aired 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Now, only advertisements advocating the defeat or election of identified candidates will be regulated in Wisconsin.
U.S. District Judge William M. Conley is expected to approve the settlement ending the litigation on August 11, 2010.
Here is the statement from the G.A.B. Web site.
You can read the Wisconsin Department of Justice stipulation letter to Judge Conley, and the Stipulation and Proposed Order.
For more news: “State agrees to drop new campaign ad rules,” by Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Photograph taken by Dori
August 11, 2010 •
Wisconsin Attorney General Issues Citizens United Opinion
State Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen issued a formal opinion on the impact on Wisconsin law of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Van Hollen explains, per Citizens United, any ban on corporate independent expenditures found in Wisconsin law violates the free speech and association guarantees of the First Amendment. The current prohibition found in Wisconsin law, however, banning the making and acceptance of corporate contributions was not reached by the Supreme Court and so it remains standing. Van Hollen goes on to explain Citizens United did not exclude issue advocacy from the scope of permissible reporting, disclosure, and disclaimer regulations which may be imposed by states like Wisconsin.
Finally, Van Hollen concurred with the recent efforts by the Government Accountability Board to suspend its enforcement of the corporate expenditure prohibition found in state law at Wisconsin Statutes § 11.38 (1)(a)(1) as those provision were clearly reached by the Citizens United decision. Attorney General Van Hollen’s opinion may be found at the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s Web site.
Photo of J.B. Van Hollen by WisPolitics.com on Wikipedia.
August 5, 2010 •
House Financial Services Committee Approves Shareholder Protection Act
The House Financial Services Committee has approved the Shareholder Protection Act of 2010 by a vote of 35-28.
H.R. 4790 requires any corporation making political expenditures must first amend its bylaws to require majority shareholder approval of any political expenditure in excess of $50,000. Corporations would also have to annually report all political spending over $10,000 to their shareholders.
The legislation authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require disclosure of all political expenditures made by a corporation as well as the individual votes of company board members who authorized the expenditures. Further, the measure requires the SEC to publish the disclosures on its public website. The measure now moves to the full House for consideration though the vote may not occur until after Congress returns from its August recess.
August 4, 2010 •
Social Media is the Emerging Question
The use of political ads on Web sites and in social media continues to test the practice of political campaigning.
California’s Fair Political Practices Commission just released a report by the Subcommittee on Internet Political Activity saying political ads used on Web sites and social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter should be regulated the same way ads are on any other medium.
Here are two articles for further reading :
“Social media wrap: California watchdog recommends Internet political campaign regulations,” by Craig Howie in the Los Angeles Times on August 2, 2010.
“State panel calls for online political ad rules,” by Marisa Lagos in the San Francisco Chronicle on August 3, 2010.
August 4, 2010 •
Two Wisconsin Groups File a Law Suit
A liberal and a conservative group join forces to fight a new Wisconsin law regulating political issue ads.
Wisconsin Club for Growth and One Wisconsin Now filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board. The groups say the new law infringes upon their right to free speech. The rule they oppose requires any group putting out a political issue ad to disclose the source of their money and how they spent it – whether or not the words in the ad direct a person to vote for or against a candidate.
The groups also raise the concern that the new law would bring greater internet regulation.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel offers this article on the challenge:
“Political opposites protest ad rules,” by Jason Stein, August 1, 2010.
Photograph taken by Dori
August 3, 2010 •
Connecticut Follow-up
Connecticut governor vetoed campaign finance bill.
Governor M. Jodi Rell vetoed Senate Bill 551, a bill passed in response to the recent U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield regarding the state’s Citizens’ Election Program, due to concerns over the state budget. Governor Rell had previously indicated to legislators her intent to veto any bill which increased grants to candidates participating in the program, but legislators chose to increase from $3,000,000 to $6,000,000 the grant to candidates participating in the general election for governor.
Rell criticized the decision, stating legislators “have taken a program that was intended to remove the taint of special interests and corruption from political campaigns and turned it into a welfare program for politicians.” Legislators are now considering a veto override to save the bill.
For more of the story, here is an article in the Boston Globe:
“Conn. governor vetoes bill to fix campaign law,” by Susan Haigh.
State and Federal Communications, Inc. provides research and consulting services for government relations professionals on lobbying laws, procurement lobbying laws, political contribution laws in the United States and Canada. Learn more by visiting stateandfed.com.