“FEC says it will enforce nonprofit disclosure rules” by Dan Eggen in The Washington Post.

“FEC Releases Disclosure Rules” by Elahe Izadi in the National Journal’s Influence Alley.

“Outside groups may have to disclose donors” by Robin Bravender and Dave Levinthal in Politico.

Here is the Federal Election Commission’s news release.

The San Diego Ethics Commission is meeting June 14, 2012 to discuss a prepared draft of municipal code amendments concerning campaign related issues, including one which pertains to the lobbying ordinance. Decision point 14 would amend applicable provisions of the lobbying ordinance to require the disclosure of contributions provided to, and fundraising performed for, committees that are primarily formed to support city candidates.

The draft amendments are available on the commission’s website.

The public is invited to provide comment on the proposed amendments at the June 14, 2012, meeting, which will be held at 5:00 p.m. in the committee room on the 12th floor of the city administration building. Correspondence may also be sent by e-mail at: ethicscommission@sandiego.gov.

Photo of the San Diego skyline by Tomcio77 on Wikipedia.

The 2013 Federal Budget proposed by President Obama would remove provisions put in the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which prohibit federal agencies from requiring the disclosure of political contributions and expenditures from vendors bidding on federal contracts.

The prohibition was inserted into the 2012 Act as a response to a draft executive order which was leaked in the spring of last year. The executive order would have required disclosure of campaign contributions and political expenditures by bidders of federal contracts.

“The White House, contrary to the intent of Congress, is apparently still trying to advance a policy that would inject politics into the federal contracting process instead of focusing on promoting competition and best value in contracting,” said U.S. Senator Susan Collins in a minority press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.

Even with the current prohibition of disclosure from bidders, some groups are urging the President to require federal contractors disclose their political contributions after the bidding process is completed and a federal contract is awarded.

A brief review of this issue can be found here.

In the spring of 2011, a draft presidential executive order was leaked to the public. The order would require every entity submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within the two years prior to submission of their offer. The disclosure requirement included contributions made to federal candidates, parties, and committees by the bidding entity, its officers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control. Contributions made to parties for independent expenditures and electioneering communications would also be reported. These disclosures would be required whenever the aggregate amount of the contributions and expenditures by the bidding entity exceed $5,000.

Reaction to the order was swift. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, writing on behalf of a coalition of more than 80 business groups and trade associations, strongly protested the proposed executive order. Meanwhile, a letter in support of the order, signed by more than 30 public interest groups, urged full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures by federal government contractors. U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo sent a letter to President Obama, signed by more than 60 members of the House, in support of the proposed executive order.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Small Business Committee held a joint hearing to examine the order, evaluate its impact and consequences on the federal acquisition system, and determine whether it introduced politics into the procurement process. Bills opposing the proposed order were introduced in both the House and the Senate. Finally, a compromise amendment, precluding an executive agency from requiring a vendor bidding on a contract to disclose political contributions, was added to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012. The act passed and was signed by President Obama at the end of 2011.

Passage of the bill did not end calls for disclosures of political contributions from federal contractors, however. Petitions with more than 100,000 signatures were submitted by Public Citizen and MoveOn.org to the White House, urging the President to require federal contractors to disclose their political contributions after the bidding process is completed and a federal contract is awarded.

The Arizona House of Representatives passed House Bill 2642, which will require more disclosure for local governments who lobby the state lawmakers. Two amendments were not added to the bill – one requiring American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) disclosure and another that would remove the one year “revolving door” waiting period for lawmakers to become lobbyists.

To find out more about the details of the new lobbying law (and what did not pass with it), be sure to read:

“Insider: Lobbyist bill passes without extras” by Mary Jo Pitzl in The Arizona Republic.

“Lawmakers OK more disclosure on lobbying” by Howard Fischer in the Arizona Daily Sun.

Photo of the Arizona House of Representatives Chamber by Willem van Bergen on Wikipedia.

Petitions with more than 100,000 signatures have been submitted to the White House urging the president to require federal contractors to disclose political contributions.

Last spring a leaked draft executive order requiring vendors submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose political contributions and expenditures resulted in both fervent support and opposition. A compromise amendment was inserted into the 565-page National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012, which passed in December, precluding federal agencies from requiring vendors bidding on federal contracts to disclose political contributions.

In their press release arguing for full transparency of corporate political spending, Public Citizen and MoveOn.org explained its petitions are asking for disclosures after the contracts are awarded.

For previous articles on Lobby Comply by George Ticoras on this topic, you can read posts from May 10, May 12, May 20, June 1, July 28, 2011, and January 5, 2012.

Photo of the The White House by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.

“Candidate and Super Pac Spending” by Khang Nguyen in the Los Angeles Times.

“Bill would require disclosure of campaign spending” by Alia Beard Rau in the Arizona Republic.

“California could be model for ‘super PAC’ disclosure” by Josh Richman in the San Jose Mercury News.

Today the New Jersey State Comptroller A. Matthew Boxer and the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) Executive Director Jeff Brindle called for a simpler pay-to-play system, tighter contracting rules, and more complete disclosure of contractor contributions.

Comptroller Boxer issued a report finding the state’s pay-to-play laws contain “a series of fatal flaws [that] have essentially rendered New Jersey’s Pay-to-Play law meaningless in the effort to prevent local governments from steering contracts to politically favored vendors.” Director Brindle stated, “Unfortunately, New Jersey’s political history is littered with examples of private contractors securing lucrative public contracts through targeted contributions.”

The comptroller’s report suggests several changes, such as eliminating the fair-and-open exception which has different regulatory systems at the state and local levels, strengthening fair-and-open guidelines to require more competitive contracting, and reforming New Jersey’s contract laws to allow a more competitive vendor-selection process.

Drawing on earlier recommendations from ELEC, Director Brindle also made calls for changes, including for one state pay-to-play law to apply “across the board” for all jurisdictions, emphasizing “the current maze of local and state laws is terribly confusing.” Additionally, ELEC proposes that any public contractor receiving a contract over $17,500 file an annual report with the agency, listing the contractor’s contributions and public contracts. The current disclosure threshold is $50,000. Director Brindle also stated the contribution limits for contractors should be raised to help address fundraising concerns and not discourage participation in the political process.

“Combined with competitive bidding reform as suggested by the Comptroller, together these changes would, I believe, constitute the strongest pay-to-play law in the nation,” Director Brindle said.

Comptroller Boxer’s press release is here. Director Brindle’s press release is here.

The Alabama Legislature adjourned on June 9, 2011.

Before adjourning, the legislature passed House Bill 0058 which requires public officials, spouses of public officials, candidates for public office, and spouses of candidates for public office to disclose employment or contracts with the state and federal government.

The bill has been sent to the governor for signature.

Photo of the Alabama State Capitol by Jim Bowen on Wikipedia.

Reaction to the leaked draft presidential executive order requiring vendor disclosure of political contributions has been increasing. A hearing was held in the House last week to examine the proposed executive order, with testimony being presented from various witnesses.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, writing on behalf of a coalition of more than 80 business groups and trade associations, has strongly protested the proposed executive order, stating, “American businesspeople should not be forced to limit the exercise of their constitutional rights under a new and oppressive regulatory scheme.”

More than 30 public-interest groups have signed a letter in support of the draft executive order, writing, “In order to keep in check actual or perceived corruption in government contracting, it is imperative that there be full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures by federal government contractors.”

If the draft presidential executive order were to be signed, it would be effective immediately, requiring every entity submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures made within the two years prior to submission of their offer.

Photo of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce courtesy of APK on Wikipedia.

U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen has filed both a lawsuit against the FEC and a petition at the FEC seeking to challenge regulations of disclosure requirements of contributions for “electioneering communications” and “independent expenditures”. In Van Hollen v. FEC, he claims the FEC regulation 11 CFR §104.20(c)(9), which requires disclosure only of those making contributions over $1,000 to an entity for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications, contradicts the statute which requires disclosure of all donors making contributions over $1,000.

The separately filed petition with the FEC requests they revise and amend regulations currently allowing independent expenditure groups to not reveal donors giving over $200 except for those contributors who gave for the purpose of furthering the reported independent expenditure. Representative Van Hollen alleges this contradicts the statute, which requires disclosure of all donors who gave over $200 to the entity.

This ethics bill, which takes effect on July 1, 2011, prohibits members of the state legislature, elected executive branch officials, agency heads, and certain other appointed officials from acting as lobbyists for one year after leaving office.

Additionally, this legislation will require a public official who files financial disclosure statements to reveal employment information and other “business interests” of his or her spouse.

The spousal disclosures are designed to shine light on additional conflicts of interest an official may have even without a personal stake in a matter.

Photo of the West Virginia State Capitol by Garkeith on Wikipedia.

Western Tradition Partnership and the Montana Citizens for Right to Work have filed suit challenging several Montana campaign finance laws that impose “onerous and constitutional burdens upon (those) engaged in political speech.”  The suit seeks to exempt the two groups from campaign finance laws and further investigation by the state, but also claims the Office of Political Practices’ entire investigative process is unconstitutional.

Montana Political Practices Commissioner Dennis Unsworth ruled October 21 that Western Tradition Partnership is a political committee and had violated state law by failing to report campaign-related spending or its donors.  The groups maintained in their complaint that they engage in “issue advocacy” communication and are not subject to Montana’s political committee laws, and that the laws themselves are unconstitutionally vague.

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.