The Los Angeles City Council rules committee voted to have the city attorney draft two versions of a proposed ban on donations to city officials from developers seeking approval for their building projects.

Version one would directly follow the Ethics Commission’s recommendation to restrict non-individuals and developers from making political contributions. The restriction would apply from the date the project application is filed until 12 months after the final resolution of the application.

Version two would ban donations from any person or entity pursuing or currently working on large development projects with the city.

Both proposals would ban elected officials from soliciting behested payments from restricted sources, and lower the disclosure threshold for behested payments to $1,000 per payor per year.

Additionally, the proposals would require the disclosure of behested payments to identify whether the payor is a lobbyist, lobbyist firm, bidder, contractor, or developer.

These drafts are expected to be presented to the full City Council within the next few weeks.

A legislative committee has voted against a proposed bill to finance Suffolk County candidates’ campaigns with future casino revenues and to increase term limits from two to four years. Specifics of the bill include a 4-to-1 match for donations up to $150 for all candidates who agree to a $1,000 cap on contributions.

As a result of the vote, the bill will not appear on the November ballot, but an initiative to allow a video slot machine casino in the Village of Islandia will.

The campaign finance bill’s sponsor, Legislator Rob Calarco, has indicated he would reintroduce his legislation if voters approve the casino initiative.

Under Senate Bill 8160, charities donating to state lobbying nonprofits could be subject to new disclosure requirements.

If signed into law, the bill would require any charitable organization donating over $2,500 to New York lobbying campaigns to disclose all of its donors, including those unrelated to lobbying efforts. To determine the donation amount, in-kind donations of staff or other resources will be included, in addition to monetary donations. Public disclosure would then follow if the State Attorney General’s Office verifies no individual donor would be harmed by release of the information.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo is expected to sign the bill.

Lobbying

California: “State Senator Calls for a Ban on Private Meetings with Coastal Commissioners to ‘Level the Playing Field’” by Dan Weikel and Kim Christensen for Los Angeles Times

Campaign Finance

Kentucky: “FBI Agent: Illegal donations went to campaigns of Andy Beshear, Jack Conway” by John Cheves for Lexington Herald-Leader

Montana: “Montana Defends Campaign Finance Law Ahead of Elections” by The Associated Press for Billings Gazette

Ethics

“When It Comes to Politics, Corruption Is Subtler Than You Think” by Trevor Burrus for Washington Post

Louisiana: “Walter Reed Guilty on 18 of 19 Counts in Federal Corruption Trial” by Robert Rhoden for New Orleans Times-Picayune

New York: “From Albany to Prison: Ex-lawmakers on life behind bars” by Vivian Yee for New York Times

Rhode Island: “R.I. House Finance Chairman Resigns; Investigation Involves Prostitution” by Katherine Gregg for Providence Journal

Elections

“John Kasich Exits the Presidential Race, Leaving Trump as Presumptive Nominee” by David Fahrenthold, David Weigel and Philip Rucker for Washington Post

“Big Business Fears Campaign-Trail Criticisms Putting Policy Priorities at Risk” by Jim Tankersley for Washington Post

The Supreme Court today upheld a Florida campaign finance restriction prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting donations. In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected First Amendment concerns, ruling states may choose to elect their judiciary but are not required to treat judicial candidates like politicians.

Though candidates may not solicit contributions, the Florida law allows others, such as campaign managers and friends, to do so on their behalf.

Chief Justice Roberts stated the case was a rare instance where the state, in trying to maintain the integrity of the bench, has a compelling interest in restricting speech.