House Democrats introduced a bill putting the 2006 voter approved campaign contribution limits on hold until at least July 2021.

House Bill 4124 would give lawmakers more time to pass new campaign contribution limits to replace those approved by voters.

The bill would allow the Legislature to appoint a task force to study campaign finance and make recommendations on how to best establish effective political contribution limits.

Currently, Oregon has no campaign contribution limits because courts have repeatedly struck down or suspended them, including the initiative voters passed almost two decades ago.

The Oregon Supreme Court is expected to rule on Multnomah County’s voter approved campaign finance limits at some point this year.

A ruling in favor of the campaign finance limits would likely revive statewide donation caps as well.

The Public Ethics Commission will consider annual adjustments to the contribution limits at their regular meeting next week.

Commission staff will present an updated list of the campaign contribution limits and expenditure ceiling amounts, as adjusted according to the increase in the Consumer Price Index as required by the Oakland Campaign Finance Reform Act.

The limitations on contributions from persons to candidates who adopt the voluntary expenditure ceiling will increase to $900 per election.

If approved, the adjusted limits will be in effect for the 2020 elections.

The Oklahoma Ethics Commission adjusted the contribution limit that individuals may give to 2020 candidate committees and that state candidate committees may give to other state candidate committees.

This contribution limit has increased from $2,700 to $2,800 per election.

However, candidate committees created for elections prior to 2020 keep the same contribution limit of $2,700.

The New York Campaign Finance Reform Commission released their report containing recommendations regarding the creation of a public campaign finance system and reforms to the state election laws.

The commission proposes to create a voluntary public campaign finance system for statewide and legislative candidates.

The public campaign finance system establishes reporting requirements for participating candidates and sets initial eligibility requirements for the program.

The commission also proposed lowering campaign contribution limits for candidates seeking statewide office to $18,000.

Contribution limits for candidates seeking the office of state senator and assembly member would also be lowered to $10,000 and $6,000, respectively.

Contribution limits would be divided equally between primary and general elections and applied to both participating and nonparticipating candidates in the proposed public campaign finance system.

The commission’s recommendations become effective December 22, unless the Legislature supersedes the report’s proposals by statute.

The U.S. Supreme Court is raising doubts about Alaska’s $500-a-year limit on contributions to political candidates.

The justices are ordering a lower court to take a new look at the issue.

The court says in an unsigned opinion on Monday that federal judges who rejected a challenge to the contribution cap did not take into account a 2006 high court ruling.

The 2006 ruling invalidated low-dollar limits on political contributions in Vermont.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate opinion expressing that Alaska’s reliance on the energy industry may make the state unusually vulnerable to political corruption and justify the low limits.

At a meeting of the Senate Campaign Finance Committee, Sen. Jeff Golden proposed new regulations that would place ceilings on the amount of money individuals and various types of political committees could give to candidates, campaigns, and one another.

Oregon is currently one of only a few states that has no campaign contribution limits.

Under this new proposal, individual donors would be limited to giving $2,000 per election for statewide races and $750 per election for House and Senate races.

Those same restrictions would apply to candidates contributing to other campaigns and multi-candidate committees, which would be similar to current special-interest PACs.

State political parties and committees associated with party members in the House or Senate could contribute up to $40,000 per election to statewide candidates and $15,000 per election to legislative candidates.

The same limits would also be applied to new small-donor committees. In exchange for being able to donate larger sums, those committees could only support a single candidate for a single election.

The committees could accept no more than $200 per election from individuals and many PACs.

In November 2020, Oregon voters will decide whether to modify the state’s constitution to explicitly allow campaign finance limits.

The Oregon Supreme Court is also considering whether to overturn a two-decade-old decision that struck down the state’s voter-approved campaign finance limits.

The court is considering the constitutionality of a 2016 ordinance passed by Multnomah County voters that places a $500 per person limit on campaign donations.

Given all that, lawmakers hope to have a framework ready should the legal landscape shift.

The challenge on Montana’s contribution limits has ended. The U.S. Supreme Court did not take up the case regarding campaign finance in Montana.

The 1994 law establishing the contribution limits was struck down in 2012 and 2015, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the limits in October 2017.

Proponents of the case said the low limits violated the First Amendment, while opponents said the limits encouraged more civil engagement.

Constitutional Amendment 2, a reform measure approved in November, is facing a second legal challenge in federal court from plaintiffs who claim the amendment unconstitutionally restricts free speech and association.

The suit was filed by Farmers State Bank and Herzog Services, with additional plaintiffs including the American Democracy Alliance, Missourians for Worker Freedom, Freedom PAC, the Free and Fair Election Fund, and John Elliott, a citizen. Plaintiffs contend the amendment’s contribution restrictions impermissibly prohibit corporate (including nonprofit) contributions in ballot measure and judicial retention campaigns.

A separate suit was filed by the Association of Missouri Electrical Cooperatives earlier in December.

The New York City Council plans to hear legislation aimed at limiting contributions from contributors who have city business to groups directed or affiliated with an elected official.

The bill, yet to be released publicly, will likely limit contributions to hundreds of dollars and require city or public officials to report contributors annually.

The bill will likely be introduced to City Council within two weeks.

The New Mexico Secretary of State released new contribution limits for non-statewide candidates, statewide candidates, and PACs.

Contributions from a person to a statewide candidate or to a PAC will increase to $5,500. Also, contributions from a PAC to a non-statewide candidate, statewide candidate, or to another PAC will increase to $5,500.

Contribution limits are adjusted every election cycle and the current adjustments will be effective on November 9, 2016.

St. Louis aldermen advanced Board Bill 53 out of committee on Tuesday, September 20.

The bill would limit contributions to municipal candidates to $10,000 per city election cycle. Such a limit is nearly four times the proposed state candidate contribution limit currently slated for the November ballot.

A final vote on the municipal measure is expected as early as October. The board bill, if passed, would take effect April 6, 2017.

Photo of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis by Daniel Schwen in Wikimedia Commons.

Lawmakers in Montana rejected a request for a special legislative session to address the state’s campaign finance laws.

Ten legislators called for a special session to address the law controlling contribution limits. In May, a U.S. District Court found Montana’s current law concerning political contribution limits unconstitutional. The ruling reinstated most contribution limits in place before the statute was enacted.

In order to convene the special session, 76 lawmakers, just over half the 150 total number of legislators, needed to agree to the special session. However, only 20 legislators voted in favor of a special session. Montana Public Radio reports Sen. Cary Smith, a supporter of the special session, as saying, “I know the standard is high to call a special session, and that we will be back in session in 2017 and be able to work on this issue.”

Photo of the Montana State Capitol by Maksim on Wikimedia Commons.

Campaign Finance

“Trump, RNC Announce Joint Fundraising Deal” by Eric Bradner and Sara Murray for CNN

Florida: “County Commissioners Endorse Campaign Reform. After Grumbling.” by Douglas Hanks for Miami Herald

Montana: “US Judge Strikes Down Montana Campaign Contribution Limits” by Holly Michels for Helena Independent Record

Ethics

California: “7 Former Top Officials of Beaumont Charged with Corruption” by Veronica Rocha and Joseph Serna for Los Angeles Times

Delaware: “Del. Bill Tightens Disclosure Requirements for Paid Lobbyists, Political Donors” by Mark Fowser for WXDE

Missouri: “For Some, Missouri Lawmakers’ Ethics Push Still Has a Long Way to Go” by Jason Rosenbaum for St. Louis Public Radio

Elections

“Bernie Sanders Facing Pressure Over Supporters’ Actions in Nevada” by Yamiche Alcindor for New York Times

“The Mind of Donald Trump” by Dan McAdams for The Atlantic

“Third-Party Candidates Face Uphill Climb to Get Place on Presidential Debate Stage” by Jonathan Easley and Ben Kamisar for The Hill

On May 17, U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell ruled the current statutory campaign finance contribution limits in Montana unconstitutional. “Defendants have not proven that the campaign contribution limits … further the important state interest of combating quid pro quo corruption or its appearance,” Lovell wrote in the court’s order.

Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Jonathan Motl said the ruling reinstates the contribution limits in place before the statute was enacted. Those contribution limits have been adjusted for inflation and are now $1,990 for governor and lieutenant governor; $990 for other statewide offices; $530 for District Court judge, Public Service Commission, and state Senate; and $330 for all other elected offices, including the state House. The limits are per candidate per election.

Attorney Matthew Monforton said the court’s ruling should mean there are no caps on contributions from any source” and will consider additional litigation if Motl doesn’t lift all limits, according to the Independent Record.

The statute struck down by Lovell in Lair v. Motl was enacted by an initiative vote in 1994.