Lobbying

California: “California Political Watchdog Targets ‘Shadow Lobbyists’” by Taryn Luna for Sacramento Bee

Maryland: “Here Are the Top Lobbyists in Maryland for the 2016 Legislative Session” by Ovetta Wiggins for Washington Post

Oregon: “Post Uber, Portland Leaders Look to Strengthen Lobbying Rules” by Amelia Templeton for Oregon Public Radio

Campaign Finance

“The Next ‘Citizens United’ Is Coming” by Carrie Levine for Center for Public Integrity

District of Columbia: “Close Council Vote Rejects Campaign Contribution Reform” by Rachel Kurzius for DCist.com

Ethics

Colorado: “Colorado Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging State Ethics Commission’s Role” by Joey Bunch for Denver Post

Elections

“Will Dominant Images of Conventions Be of Unity or Protest?” by Trip Gabriel for New York Times

Florida: “Marco Rubio Will Seek Senate Reelection, Reversing Pledge Not to Run” by Mike DeBonis, Ed O’Keefe, and Sean Sullivan for Washington Post

Florida: “Florida Lawmaker Wants to Give Away an AR-15” by Mike McPhate for New York Times

Legislative Issues

“House Democrats’ Gun-Control Sit-In Turns into Chaotic Showdown with Republicans” by David Herszenhorn and Emmarie Huetteman for New York Times

A bipartisan majority of lawmakers is calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution overturning the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In the Citizens United decision, the Court ruled corporations and unions should be considered individuals for purposes of political contributions; therefore, restricting their donations to candidates is a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech.

New York is now one of 16 states—and the first with a Republican-controlled chamber—supporting an amendment in response to the decision.

California’s Senate Bill 254 became law without the governor’s signature on June 9, 2016.

The measure will place a ballot question on the November 8, 2016 ballot asking voters whether California’s elected officials should use all of their constitutional authority, including proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn the Citizens United decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

A previous version of this bill was approved by lawmakers in 2014, but was blocked by legal challenges until January 2016 when the Supreme Court of California upheld the Legislature’s power to use advisory ballot measures.

Lobbying

“A Cool Million Was Spent Lobbying Hawaii Lawmakers in Two Months” by Nathan Eagle for Honolulu Civil Beat

“Dem Gets Free Penn State Tickets and Bills Taxpayers for the Mileage as Lobbying Soars in Pa.” by Candy Woodall for Harrisburg Patriot-News

Campaign Finance

“Unlimited Campaign Contributions in Pa. Create ‘Investments in Power’” by Candy Woodall for Harrisburg Patriot-News

“Yes, ‘Citizens United’ Gives Republicans an Electoral Edge. Here’s Proof.” by Tilman Klumpp, Hugo Mialon, and Michael Williams for Washington Post

Ethics

“The Pentagon Isn’t Tracking if Former Employees Violate Revolving Door Laws” by Eric Katz for Government Executive

“Emails Raise ‘Pay to Play’ Concerns” by Chris Sikich for Indianapolis Star

“Spat Escalates over Secret Legislative Records in NM” by Morgan Lee (Associated Press) for Las Cruces Sun-News

“New Executive Director Named for OK Ethics Commission” by Rick Green for The Oklahoman

Elections

“American Anger: It’s Not the Economy. It’s the Other Party.” by Lynn Vavrick for New York Times

“The Messy Way Colorado Is Picking Its GOP Delegates May Actually Matter This Year” by Ed O’Keefe for Washington Post

“Trump’s Rise Shows Religion Is Losing Its Political Power” by Eduardo Porter for New York Times

“In Reddit’s Unruly Corners, Trump Finds Support” by John Herrman for New York Times

Campaign Finance

“K Street Money Set Looks to Contain Trump Damage” by Anna Palmer and Jake Sherman for Politico

California: “Citizens United Is Only 15% of the Political Cash Problem” by Nick Penniman and Wendell Potter for Los Angeles Times

Ethics   

Florida: “Bill Aimed at Cutting Public Corruption Goes to Gov. Scott” by The Associated Press for WINK

New York: “New York Assemblywoman Sexually Harassed Aide, Ethics Panel Says” by Vivian Yee for New York Times

Elections

“Can Labor Still Turn Out the Vote?” by Steven Greenhouse for New York Times

“Soros and Other Liberal Donors to Fund Bid to Spur Latino Voters” by Nicholas Confessore and Julia Preston for New York Times

“The Convention the GOP Doesn’t Want” by Julian Zelizer for The Atlantic

The New Hampshire Legislature begins the New Year addressing campaign finance issues stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision. On Wednesday, January 6, the House will review Senate Bill 136, a bill first introduced in the 2015 legislative session. The bill, which passed the Senate last year, establishes a committee to review constitutional amendments pending in Congress regarding the Citizens United decision and related cases having been introduced in the United States Supreme Court.

Photo of the New Hampshire State House by AlexiusHoratius on Wikipedia.

Following a ruling by the California Supreme Court, the California Legislature is permitted to place an advisory measure related to campaign finance on the November 2016 ballot. The advisory measure asks voters their opinions on campaign finance and whether there should be a federal constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

A conservative group challenged the constitutionality of the advisory measure, insisting the Legislature was prohibited from putting such measures before voters. The California Supreme Court ruled the advisory measure is permissible because state legislatures have a role in passing federal constitutional amendments, and therefore it met the required nexus between an advisory measure and a potential legislative action.

Proposition 49, the “Citizens United” measure, will appear on the general election ballot in November 2016.

Lobbying

“New Generation of Trade Group CEOs Take More Aggressive – and at Times Unorthodox – Approach to Lobbying” by Catherine Ho for Washington Post

California: “Tighter Rules for Lobbying Win S.F. Voter Approval” by Kevin Fagan for San Francisco Chronicle

Rhode Island: “38 Studios: House panel chairwoman wants investigation of deal maker Michael Corso” by Katherine Gregg for Providence Journal

Campaign Finance

Florida: “Dade Medical College Owner Turns Himself In” by Michael Vasquez for Miami Herald

“Maine Backs Post-Citizens United Campaign Finance Initiative” by Paul Blumenthal for Huffington Post

South Dakota: “Council Nixes PAC Contribution Limit” by Joe Sneve for Sioux Falls Argus Leader

Washington: “‘Democracy Vouchers’ Win in Seattle; First in Country” by Bob Young for Seattle Times

Ethics

“Mayor de Blasio’s Hired Guns: Private consultants help shape City Hall” by Thomas Kaplan for New York Times

Elections

“Joseph Ganim, Disgraced Ex-Mayor of Bridgeport, Conn., Wins Back Job” by Kristin Hussey for New York Times

“Matt Bevin, Republican, Wins Governor’s Race in Kentucky” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Alan Blinder for New York Times

“Michigan Lawmakers Ousted Over Affair Lose Bid to Regain House Seats” by Associated Press for New York Times

Redistricting

Ohio: “Voters Approve Issue to Reform Ohio’s Redistricting Process” by Jim Siegel for Columbus Dispatch

On May 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling in Lair v. Bullock. The lower court concluded Montana’s political contribution limits were unconstitutionally low. The appellate court found the lower district court applied the wrong legal standard prior to permanently enjoining the enforcement of Montana’s restrictions on campaign contributions by individuals, political action committees, and political parties.

The case was remanded back to the district court to allow Montana’s political contribution limits to be tested under the new and more restrictive standard of Citizens United v. FEC. This new standard, the court stated, means, “The prevention of quid pro quo corruption, or its appearance, is the only sufficiently important state interest to justify limits on campaign contributions. Before Citizens United, it was enough to show the state’s interest was simply to prevent the influence contributors of large sums have on politicians, or the appearance of such influence. No longer so.”

Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathon Motl said he was confident the limits will be sustained, according to the Missoulian.

On Tuesday, October 14, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Citizens United may air a documentary slamming Colorado liberals without disclosing its backers. The conservative group argued Colorado campaign finance laws burden some speakers while protecting others, in violation of the First Amendment.

The court issued an emergency injunction allowing Citizens United to get the film out before the Nov. 4 election. While the movie will be exempt from disclosure, the court will allow the secretary of state to require disclosure for advertisements about it, if the ads are in support or in defeat of a named candidate.

A federal judge rejected Citizens United’s request to air a documentary critical of Colorado Democrats without disclosing its donors in accordance with state law.

The conservative group argues its free speech rights are violated when the law requires it to disclose donors while effectively exempting traditional print media and broadcasters from the same requirement.

Although its motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, Citizens United President David Bossie claims the organization will appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

On August 14, Citizens United filed suit in federal court against Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler. The lawsuit is a response to Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Staiert’s June decision classifying the group’s upcoming documentary as a reportable electioneering communication.

Citizens United had hoped the documentary would be excluded from the definition of reportable electioneering communication under a general press-entity exemption. Although the Federal Election Commission applies such an exemption for Citizens United at the federal level, the secretary of state lacked the authority to import the FEC’s analysis and decision.

Citizens United is now asking the court to permanently enjoin enforcement of applicable reporting and disclosure requirements in their entirety or, in the alternative, enjoin enforcement of the requirements as applied to Citizens United. The group argues its right to engage in political speech is significantly burdened while the rights of print media and broadcast facilities are not. Moreover, the group claims the reporting and disclosure requirements discriminate based on a speaker’s identity and, therefore, violate both the U.S. and Colorado constitutions.

On Thursday, June 5, Colorado Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Staiert issued an agency decision in response to Citizens United’s petition for declaratory order. Citizens United requested its upcoming documentary be excluded from the definition of reportable electioneering communication by classifying it as one of the constitutional exemptions. The secretary of state found the communication does not fall within any exemptions and there is no general press-entity exemption to the definition of electioneering communication.

As Citizens United engages in communication for the primary purpose of influencing elections, it is exactly the type of entity to which reporting requirements apply. To rule otherwise would defeat the purpose of state campaign finance law and disregard the rationale behind full disclosure.

Moreover, the secretary of state found it does not have the authority to create a general press exemption to campaign finance reporting requirements. Although the Federal Election Commission applies such an exemption for Petitioner at the federal level, the secretary of state lacks the authority to import the FEC’s analysis and decision. Therefore, Petitioner’s remedy at the state level lies with courts in the form of litigation, with the legislature in the form of referendum, or with the people in the form of initiative.

Today U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy announced the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing related to campaign finance next month.

On June 3, the full committee will focus on Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment granting Congress and the states power to regulate money in political elections.

Leahy argues in his press release, “The hearing comes on the heels of the Court’s McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision, in which five justices reversed long-standing precedent and declared aggregate limits on campaign contributions in elections to be unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Coupled with the destructive Citizens United decision of 2010, … Congress must respond.”

SJR 19 was introduced by Sen. Tom Udall and has 40 cosponsors.