Legislators have passed an ethics overhaul capping lobbyist gifts at $75 and eliminating a prior proposal to require lobbying registration for volunteer advocates. The House and Senate voted unanimously for House Bill 142 shortly before adjournment on Thursday, March 28, 2013.

This is the state’s first limitation on gifts to public officials. Exceptions to the $75 limit include committee dinners, dinners for caucuses, and certain lobbyist-funded travel. The $75 cap is per occurrence and per lobbyist.

There is no explicit limit on the number of gifts permitted. As part of the deal, volunteers will not have to register as lobbyists unless they are reimbursed $250 or more in expenses from an organization.

UPDATE: The bill will also remove the $300 lobbyist registration and renewal fee when it becomes effective on January 1, 2014, following approval by the Governor

The Senate approved its version of a House ethics bill on Friday, March 25, 2013. Now the House and Senate are seeking common ground between the different versions of House Bill 142.

The House version of the bill bans most gifts from lobbyists to individual legislators, but allows unlimited gifts to legislative groups. The Senate version imposes a $100 gift cap and erases the exception for legislative groups, but does not limit the number of gifts allowed. The Senate version also erases the House version’s expanded lobbyist registration for unpaid advocates.

Both chambers are expected to appoint a joint committee to negotiate in an effort to reach compromise before the session reaches its scheduled end on Thursday, March 28, 2013.

Photo of the Georgia State Capitol dome by Connor Carey on Wikipedia.

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has introduced a bill with ramifications on the way lobbyists do business in the commonwealth. Currently, lobbyists may give gifts to anyone, provided there is no understanding the recipient will take an official action as a result of the gift. House Bill 855, however, would do away with this practice and limit the ability of lobbyists to give gifts.

The bill, introduced by representatives from both sides of the aisle, would prohibit public officers and candidates from receiving gifts from lobbyists and principals exceeding $50 in a calendar year. The bill would also limit the hospitality received by public officers and candidates from lobbyists and principals to $500 in a calendar year.

Gifts to public officials has become a hot topic in the commonwealth after reports surfaced saying Governor Tom Corbett has accepted gifts in the past.

When asked whether the governor would support a gift ban, spokeswoman Kelli Roberts said, “Governor Corbett has a tremendous record of transparency and enacting state government reforms, therefore, of course, he would be open to discussing any measures that help to further those goals.”

Bills of this nature usually have a tough time gaining legislative approval, but with the current climate in the commonwealth, House Bill 855 may have a better chance to survive than most.

Seal of the State of Pennsylvania art by Henrik on Wikipedia.

State Representative Scott Drury has recently introduced two bills that would change the way lobbyists operate within the state. House Bill 2957 would change the definition of lobbying, thus causing more people to register as a lobbyist.

The bill would add communicating with a local government to influence action to the definition of lobbying. Therefore, all people who lobby a local government without a lobbying ordinance, the cities of Rockford and Springfield for example, would have to register as a lobbyist with the state. Also, those who lobby in a city with a lobbying ordinance, such as Chicago, would have to register with the state, in addition to their current city registration.

House Bill 2964 is a bill aimed at the state’s current prohibition on gifts. It would prohibit the relatives of a state officer, legislator, or employee from receiving prohibited gifts from a prohibited source (under state law, a lobbyist is considered a prohibited source). The bill also adds a new exception to the ban, adjusts one of the current exceptions, and abolishes another of the exceptions.

If the bill passes, a state officer, legislator, or employee would be allowed to accept admission to and the cost of food and beverages consumed at a reception, meal, or meeting by an organization before whom the recipient appears to speak or answer questions as part of a scheduled program where all members of the General Assembly were invited. This would replace the current exception for food and beverage, which allows for those to be provided if catered or consumed on the premises.

The bill would also limit the amount of travel expenses provided to $111 per day and the travel must be on a carrier available to the general public.

It remains to be seen whether either one of the bills will pass, but should they pass in their current form, it will change how lobbyists do business in the state.

Photo of the Illinois State Capitol by Daniel Schwen on Wikipedia.

Lobbying

“K St. ready for cybersercurity cash grab” by Kevin Bogardus in The Hill.

“Under Contract” in The Hill.

Illinois: “Lobbying push at Capitol as gun issue looms” by Rafael Guerrero in the Chicago Tribune.

Pennsylvania: “Gov. Tom Corbett may be open to a gift ban, spokeswoman suggests” by Jan Murphy in the Patriot-News.

Texas: “Watchdogs: Ethics Loopholes Obscure Lobby Perks” by Jay Root in the Texas Tribune.

Campaign Finance

Colorado: “David Sirota Moderates Discussion On Campaign Finance Reform, Democracy In Colorado” by Matt Ferner in the Huffington Post.

Ethics

California: “STATE LEGISLATURE: Area lawmakers given gifts, trips in 2012” by Jim Miller in the Press-Enterprise.

Florida: “Florida House bridles at Senate’s proposed ethics reforms” by Dara Kam in the Palm Beach Post.

Florida: “Matt Reed: Something to cheer, for a change, as Legislature opens” by Matt Reed in Florida Today.

Hawaii: “Hawaii Legislators Exempt Themselves from State Ethics Code” by Barbara Polk in the Hawaii Reporter.

The House of Representatives has passed ethics legislation to bar lobbyist gifts to individual lawmakers and enact new rules on lobbyist registration.

House Bill 142 passed 164-4 on Monday, February 26, 2013 and now goes to the Senate.

Critics hope the Senate provides a limit for the gift ban exceptions, which allow for unlimited gifts to groups of legislators such as committees and caucuses.

The New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) is currently in the process of developing draft regulations for the state’s gift laws. These draft regulations will attempt to provide clarity and guidance to those regulated by the commission.

The draft regulations concerning gifts given by lobbyists allow lobbyists to follow a step-by-step guide to determine whether he or she is allowed to legally give the gift. JCOPE is accepting written comments on the draft regulations until February 15, 2013. JCOPE will then use those written comments to draft proposed regulations.

Updated February 13, 2013: The New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics has extended the deadline to submit written comments on the draft regulations to March 8, 2013.

House Speaker David Ralston has unveiled an ethics reform bill aimed at expanding the definition of a lobbyist and restricting gifts from a lobbyist. House Bill 142 would define a lobbyist to include an individual who advocates for the purpose of influencing a public officer whether the individual is compensated or working pro bono.

The new definition does away with both the $1,000 expenditure and 10 percent time spent thresholds for lobbyist registration. The bill, as originally filed, would ban even the smallest expenditure of a lobbyist if for the benefit of a single member of the General Assembly.

Lobbyists would still be permitted to spend on committees, caucuses, and expenses to public officers for trips to conferences and meetings.

The Florida Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections is working on a proposed bill to revise the state’s ethics law.

The draft language relating to lobbying and gift law in the bill establishes a fine for executive branch lobbyists for failure to provide required information or knowingly providing false information in a report, and prohibits vendors from providing gifts to reporting individuals or procurement employees. Other changes the committee is considering include:

• Restrictions on former legislators’ employment as a lobbyist, such as ban on executive branch lobbying and a prohibition on becoming a partner, principal, or employee of a firm whose primary business is lobbying the state legislature within the two years after a legislator leaves office; and
• A prohibition on or reduced gift limit for gifts to covered individuals from committees of continuous existence, or CCEs. House Speaker Will Weatherford has called for elimination of CCEs, which are often used by legislators to pay for meals, travel, and gifts.

The committee plans to have final draft language available on January 18, and plans to consider the proposed bill at its January 22 meeting.

The Senate has imposed a $100 limit on gifts from lobbyists. Senators approved the gift cap 42-12 on the opening day of the 2013 General Assembly session as part of new rules governing the chamber’s operations for the current two-year term.

The new rule does not apply to travel costs or to gifts provided to groups of senators, including members of committees. The rule also allows lobbyists to give $100 gifts on multiple occasions.

Although not bound by senate rules, house leaders plan to introduce legislation later this week calling for a complete ban on lobbyist gifts.

Photo of the Georgia State Capitol courtesy of connor.carey on Wikipedia.

The Fair Political Practices Commission has announced cancellation of the October 18, 2012 meeting. Regulations previously scheduled for review included a requirement for political committees to report expenses associated with online communications such as blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. Biennial adjustment reviews of campaign contribution limits, voluntary expenditure ceilings, and gift limits have also been postponed.

These and other potential regulation changes are tentatively scheduled to be considered during the December 13, 2012 commission meeting at 10:00 a.m. The meeting will be held in Board Chambers Room 310, County Administration Center, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92101.

Lobbying

Via Eric Brown’s Political Activity Law blog – Missouri:“Mo. Sen. candidate wants ban on all lobbyist gifts to state lawmakers” by Marshall Griffin in St. Louis Public Radio.

Wisconsin: “Former Assembly speaker now a lobbyist” by Jason Stein in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Campaign Finance

“Rules of the Game: Shining a Light on Political ‘Dark Money‘” by Eliza Newlin Carney in Roll Call.

Arizona: “Probe into Horne’s campaign finances leads to report over alleged hit-and-run” by Howard Fischer in the East Valley Tribune.

Social Media

“Mashable Special Report: How Digital Is Transforming Politics” by Josh Catone in Mashable.

“How the Internet will Change the Government” by Henry Brown in Govloop.

Council President Jack Young has introduced legislation on behalf of city watchdog officials to close gaps in Baltimore’s ethics code after reviewing attempts to take advantage of loopholes.

The bill would prohibit council members from accepting gifts from anyone who has lobbied the city in the previous 12 months, even if the lobbyist is no longer registered.

Last January a prominent lobbyist attempted to give a gift, including tickets, to a council member during a short interlude between the expiration of the lobbyist’s 2011 registration and the eventual 2012 registration renewal.

Q. Are there any additional compliance requirements of which to be aware because this is a Presidential election year?

 A. In a word, no. However, given the substantial increase in federal, state, and local contributions, it is important to keep in mind some compliance basics during an election year:

• Be aware of what restrictions exist in a specific jurisdiction regarding pre-election contributions and/or communications. Several states have laws restricting contributions within a certain time period of an election. Federally, there are time-period restrictions associated with election communications;
• Track reportable contributions that may only come into play during an election year. For instance, at the federal level, contributions made to an inaugural committee are reportable on the LD-203;
• The same gift laws apply leading up to an election as the rest of the year. Understand the definition of a gift as it relates to a “covered official” from any given jurisdiction and don’t violate it because you happen to be attending an election-related activity, including conventions;
• Most jurisdictions have personal, corporate and/or PAC contribution limits. Be diligent in monitoring contributions so as not to surpass those limits;
• Don’t rely on a “covered official” from any jurisdiction to know his/her jurisdiction’s limits or restrictions. Be proactive in determining restrictions ahead of time; and
• Consider implementing “Election Year” guidelines within your organization to keep everyone on the same page.

In an election year, the increase in activity coupled with jurisdictional differences can make compliance a little trickier. By following these fundamental guidelines, you are more likely to ensure that at the end of the day you can say, “I Comply.” As always, should you have any questions regarding your compliance efforts, don’t hesitate to refer to State and Federal Communication’s on-line source books or contact us directly.

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