Effective July 30, 2017, Arkansas constitutional officers are prohibited from soliciting or accepting loans from lobbyists.

Senate Bill 7, now known as Act 1108, amends the definition of gift to include any advance or loan. The bill excludes an advance or loan made in the ordinary course of business by a financial institution or business regularly extending credit.

Bills signed during the regular session are effective 90 days after the final, official day of session, unless otherwise specified. The 91^st General Assembly is set to adjourn sine die on May 1, 2017.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe approved changes to Virginia’s gift rules this week, marking the fourth consecutive year lawmakers have adjusted ethics provisions. Among other changes, House Bill 1854, and identical Senate Bill 1312, requires lobbyists to send legislators and executive officials a summary of gifts provided from January 1 through adjournment sine die of the regular session of the General Assembly. The summary must be provided within three weeks of adjournment and does not include the reconvened session.

The bill also eliminates the “common interest” exception to the $100 gift limit on lobbyists for widely attended events. This exception was used to justify luxury suite tickets to football games. An exception is added, however, for attendance at a reception where hors d’oeuvres and beverages are provided and can be consumed while standing or walking.

These changes are effective July 1, 2017, except the gift notification requirement is effective immediately.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed House Bill 1401 and Senate Bill 169 into law. Both bills provide exceptions to the definition of gift.

For example, House Bill 1401 excludes nonalcoholic beverages provided to attendees at a meeting of a civic, social, or cultural organization or group from the definition of gift, as well as food and nonalcoholic beverages provided to participants at a bona fide panel, seminar, or speaking engagement at which the audience is a civic, social, or cultural organization or group.

Senate Bill 169 provides the use of one or more rooms or facilities owned, operated, or otherwise utilized by a state agency or political subdivision of the state for the purpose of conducting a meeting of a specific governmental body is not a gift.

House Bill 1401 is effective immediately and Senate Bill 169 will become effective 90 days after the Legislature adjourns sine die, or June 9, 2017.

Reviving his concern from last year’s legislative session, Sen. Ernie Chambers introduced a bill to prevent lawmakers from accepting meals from lobbyists in the Capitol. Legislative Bill 445 is similar to a proposal Sen. Chambers sponsored last year, but it never made it to a vote. The bill specifically aims to prohibit meals served to lawmakers at the end of the session, when last minute decisions are made.

Lobbyists typically pool their money and provide large, buffet-style meals for legislators as they work into the night. Sen. Chambers said he is concerned the meals create the appearance improper influence.

The lawsuit filed in state court to block the government ethics overhaul recently approved by voters will have its first hearing December 8th. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Initiated Measure 22 which became effective last week restricting campaign contributions and gifts from lobbyists.

The group of 24 Republican lawmakers bringing the suit are seeking an injunction to block the law, and South Dakotans for Integrity, the ballot question committee that supported Initiated Measure 22, has filed a motion to intervene.

Last week, the executive director of the Chicago Board of Ethics told the mayor and aldermen they could buy Cubs playoff tickets at face value provided they went to the game themselves and were publicly acknowledged by having their names announced or displayed.

A new ethics interpretation, however, will take effect before the Cubs face the Dodgers in game six of the seven-game series. In a revised memorandum, the Board of Ethics said the elected officials may accept the tickets at face value only if they perform a ceremonial duty or action and there is a clear and direct connection between the official’s attendance and performance of such ceremonial duty or action.

The Board of Aldermen passed two bills on October 7 to establish campaign contribution limits and clarify gift reporting.

Board Bill 53 limits campaign contributions in city elections to $10,000 per election cycle. Violations could result in 90 days of jail and a $500 fine. If signed by Mayor Francis Slay, the bill would be effective April 6, 2017, just after the spring mayoral election.

Board Bill 126 requires elected officials to report gifts and travel expenses valued at $375 or more when given by interested persons. Violating the reporting requirement would result in docked pay. Currently, the code requires reporting of gifts exceeding $250, but it is not clear whether public officials are reporting gifts as required.

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

The San Francisco Ethics Commission voted unanimously to submit an initiative ordinance to the November 2016 ballot.

The measure would restrict lobbyist gifts, campaign contributions, and bundled contributions.

If passed by voters, the ordinance will become effective January 1, 2018.

Sen. Todd Kaminsky and Representative Charles Lavine have introduced a new bill which would amend the penal law relating to unlawful giving. Senate Bill 8169 would close a loophole allowing public officials to receive or give gifts or benefits in excess of $3,000 simply because of their official position.

The bill does not affect campaign contributions, which are already monitored by the Board of Elections.

The legislation is a response to the recent Supreme Court decision in McDonnell v. The United States, which permits officials to receive lavish gifts so long as the gifts are not exchanged for promises to perform governmental acts.

Q. In what ways are my company and I allowed to get involved in the 2016 national party conventions?

A. The opportunities for individuals and companies to involve themselves in this year’s party conventions are legion, but caution must be exercised to avoid running afoul of the many intersecting laws governing your interaction with the delegates and other officials in attendance as well as the committees putting on the conventions.

Convention delegates and those seeking selection as delegates are subject to the federal contribution rules, which means corporations, labor organizations, foreign nationals and businesses, and federal contractors are not permitted to make contributions. However, those permitted to contribute may do so without limits. Delegates who are public officials are subject to the gifts laws governing the office they hold. In other words, federal officials are subject to federal gift laws, state officials are subject to state gift laws, and local officials are subject to any state and local laws applicable to their office.

Individuals and organizations seeking to become involved with the conventions may contribute to the convention host committees. The host committees are nonprofit organizations set up to encourage commerce in and project a favorable image of the convention city. Organizations and individuals may donate money and make in-kind donations to the host committee to defray the costs of the convention, including costs related to promoting the city and welcoming attendees, providing information and samples to attendees, administrative expenses, providing the use of convention facilities, transportation, law enforcement, hotel rooms, accommodations and hospitality for party site selection groups, and for other convention-related facilities and services.

Convention committees are related to the national party organizations and therefore federal campaign finance laws apply. As a result, direct and in-kind contributions using funds from a corporation, labor organization, foreign nations and businesses, and federal contractors are prohibited. Goods and services may be provided to the national committee in the ordinary course of business. Obviously, it’s quite important to distinguish the host committees from the convention committees. Thankfully, both host committees, the Cleveland 2016 Host Committee and the Philadelphia 2016 Host Committee, use the word “host” in their official names.

The national party conventions represent high profile ways to gain exposure both personally and for your organization. This high profile is also why compliance with the rules governing your dealings with committees, delegates, and attendees is so important.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: experts@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.

Today, amendments to a Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) conflict-of-interest rule concerning gifts and gratuities take effect. MSRB Rule G-20 includes restrictions limiting gifts to $100 for municipal advisors giving gifts to employees of entities engaged in municipal securities activities. Municipal advisors are also prohibited from receiving reimbursement of entertainment expenses from the proceeds of an offering of municipal securities. The rule is intended to protect against improprieties and conflicts of interest arising when regulated entities give gifts related to the municipal securities or municipal advisory activities of the recipients’ employers.

Former state lawmaker Holli Woodings is leading the campaign for a voter initiative to make large-scale changes to state ethics laws. Changes would include prohibiting political contributions from state contractors as well as cutting contribution limits across the board, banning gifts of more than $50 from lobbyists, and creating a one-year revolving door provision for public officers.

Having collected the required 48,000 signatures in less than two months, Woodings hopes the measure will appear on the November 2016 ballot. Signature collection will continue to be sure enough valid signatures have been gathered before the April 30 deadline.

Meeting today for its annual veto-session, the Virginia General Assembly turned its attention to ethics legislation amendments recommended by Gov. Terry McAuliffe. Lawmakers recently passed identical bills, Senate Bill 692 and House Bill 1362, to roll back some of the changes made last year to restrictions on gifts from lobbyists.

McAuliffe proposed tightening the limits further and prohibiting bundling of gifts from multiple sources to avoid the threshold. The Senate, today, voted against adopting those proposals. The governor must now choose between signing or vetoing the bills as passed by both houses.

Photo of the Virginia State Capitol by Anderskev in Wikimedia Commons.

The Honolulu Charter Commission is considering a proposal today to clarify conflict-of-interest provisions for city employees and officials. Current charter provisions prohibit employees and officials from soliciting or accepting any gift, directly or indirectly, if it can reasonably be inferred the gift is intended to influence the officer or employee in the performance of official duties. The new proposal would prohibit only those gifts intended to influence an officer or employee in the performance of official duties and benefiting the official, his or her family, or individuals or organizations with which he or she has a past, present, or future connection.

Proponents argue the proposal creates a clear standard of conduct, while opponents claim the changes would make it more difficult to enforce gift restrictions in the future. It is inherently difficult to prove the intent behind a gift or the existence of a connection with the recipient. The proposal, therefore, will likely result in individuals, namely lobbyists, avoiding penalties. Interestingly enough, several commission members are current or former lobbyists, or work for organizations employing lobbyists.