Q. I will be attending several upcoming conferences where legislators and other public officials will be present.   I’m not a registered lobbyist at the state level—do I still need to worry about gift limits?

A. Even if you are not a registered lobbyist, you will still need to be mindful of the various gift limits applicable to legislators and public officials you engage at these conferences.  Depending on your company’s status as a lobbyist employer, you may be subject to more stringent limits in certain jurisdictions.  It’s important to remember there is no one-size-fits-all approach to determining permissibility.  Each state addresses gift limits differently, and what will be permissible in one jurisdiction will not be permissible in another.   Further, you should not depend on the legislator or public official to know applicable gift limits.  Because gift limits may vary depending on your company’s status as a lobbyist employer, officials may not be aware of which limit to apply when accepting gifts and benefits.

Numerous states have gift exceptions specifically applicable to expenditures at national conferences to which all members of the legislature are invited (such as NCSL) as long as the expenditures are part of the conference agenda.  Examples of this include lunch/dinner events, or a sponsored state night.  However, for private dinners and events and other expenditures not included on the official agenda, you will still be subject to a state’s regular gift limits and restrictions.

In some cases, your expenditures on behalf of these individuals will need to be disclosed on a lobbyist employer report.  You will need to coordinate closely with your company’s government affairs or legal department to not only determine permissibility, but to determine whether the expense is reportable. For jurisdictions requiring disclosure, you may need to report the date of the expense, the name of the individual(s) receiving the benefit, a brief description, and the value of the expense.   Make sure to save itemized receipts.  Some jurisdictions require you to report the name and address of the vendor (such as a restaurant or catering company) and may additionally require you to determine the reportable amount by specific benefit received.  Some states do not permit meal expenditures to be calculated on a prorated basis (i.e., a dinner valued at $375, divided by the number of attendees) but instead require disclosure of a specific amount attributed to a particular legislative official or employee (i.e., $15.75 for the salmon entrée).

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.

Lobbying

Missouri: “MEC Dismisses Complaint against Redmon” by Travis Zimpfer for Missouri Times

Ohio: “Mills Stepping Off City Council, Ballot Amid Ethics Questions” by Lucas Sullivan for Columbus Dispatch

Campaign Finance

“Lawrence Lessig Wants to Run for President – in a Most Unconventional Way” by Philip Rucker for Washington Post

California: “Watchdog Issues Campaign Fines in Los Angeles Mayor’s Race” by Juliet Williams (Associated Press) for Miami Herald

Ethics

Connecticut: “Ganim Pushes Anti-Corruption Reforms” by Brian Lockhart for Connecticut Post

New York: “Halfmoon Ex-Supervisor Melinda Wormuth Admits to Corruption Charges” by Brendan Lyons for Albany Times Union

Oklahoma: “Oklahoma Lawmaker Resigns amid Embezzlement Investigation” by Tim Talley (Associated Press) for Albany Times Union

Virginia: “Federal Appeals Court Turns Down Former Va. Governor McDonnell, Again” by Matt Zapotosky for Washington Post

Elections

“Rick Perry’s Campaign Details a Path Forward despite Money Woes” by Philip Rucker for Washington Post

Lobbying

California: “Anaheim Councilwoman Criticized for Trip with Disneyland Lobbyist” by Adam Elmahrek for Voice of OC

Campaign Finance

“New Challenge Filed to Party ‘Soft-Money’ Limits” by Kenneth Doyle for Bloomberg BNA

Alabama: “Federal Court Upholds Alabama PAC-to-PAC Transfer Ban Law” by Shaun Zinck for Legal Newsline

Montana: “Campaign Finance Rules Released, Upcoming Public Hearings” by Alexander Deedy for Helena Independent Record

Ethics

Pennsylvania: “Corruption Accusations Paint Troubling Picture of Politics in Philadelphia Region” by Jonathan Tamari and Chris Palmer for Philadelphia Inquirer

Michigan: “Recordings: State rep asked aide to hide relationship” by Chad Livengood for MLive.com

South Carolina: “S.C. Statehouse Corruption Probe Continues, but Where Will it Lead?” by Schuyler Kropf for Charleston Post and Courier

Texas: “Texas Watchdog Group Calls another Political Titan to Account” by Manny Fernandez for New York Times

Elections

Arkansas: “Arkansas Attorney General Approves Wording of Term Limits Amendment” by The Associated Press for Arkansas Business

Procurement

Mississippi: “Gov. Bryant Orders Contracting Reform” by Geoff Pender for Jackson Clarion-Ledger

Lobbying

“Bennet, Franken Introduce Lobbying Reform Bill – CWA Goes after Planned Parenthood Consultant – New Dems Break Fundraising Record” by Tarini Parti for Politico

Ohio: “Redflex-Funded Groups Helped Columbus Lobby for Cameras” by Lucas Sullivan for Columbus Dispatch

Campaign Finance

“IRS Mismanaged Tea Party Groups, Senate Report Finds” by Bernie Becker for The Hill

Minnesota: “Mark Dayton Drew Big Inaugural Checks after Election” by Brian Bakst (Associated Press) for St. Paul Pioneer Press

Ethics

Georgia: “Investigator: Corruption in DeKalb County ‘stunning’” by Dave Williams for Atlanta Business Chronicle

Indiana: “Pence Cancels BMV Contract, Asks for Ethics Investigation” by Tony Cook for Indianapolis Star

Oregon: “Cylvia Hayes Must Turn Over Emails to Judge for Review, Release” by Nick Budnick and Laura Gunderson for Portland Oregonian

Pennsylvania: “Montco DA Charges Attorney General Kane” by Craig McCoy, Angela Couloumbis, and Jeremy Roebuck for Philadelphia Inquirer

West Virginia: “Law Restricts WV Elected Officials’ Self-Promotion Using Taxpayer Money” by Phil Kabler for Charleston Gazette

National:

Drunk on Power: Booze distributors ply statehouses to keep profits flowing
Center for Public Integrity – Liz Essley Whyte | Published: 8/6/2015

Alcohol distribution is a $135 billion industry in the U.S. To protect the regulations that guarantee their business, wholesalers bankroll scores of lobbyists and give millions of dollars in political contributions. Because alcohol is largely regulated at the state and local level, wholesalers aim most of their political firepower at statehouses. At least 22 states had bills in 2015 seeking to allow alcohol makers to circumvent distributors and sell their products directly to customers. They faced firm opposition because alcohol wholesaler alliances had at least 315 registered lobbyists spread across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Distributors gave about $14.6 million to state candidates, parties, and ballot issue groups in 2014.

Federal:

Limits Unclear on New Political Party ‘Slush Funds’
Center for Responsive Politics – Carrie Levine | Published: 8/3/2015

A new law allows political parties to accept more than $800,000 per person per year, compared to $97,200 under the old limits. The money technically must be used only for specific purposes, such as legal expenses and improvements to party headquarters. But the limits are murkier than they seem, with some lawyers saying the money could legally pay for some election-related costs such as opposition research and data mining. And the FEC is at an impasse over whether and how to issue rules governing the new party accounts. As a result, decisions about spending the money are pretty much up to the parties and their lawyers.

Rand Paul Super PAC Head Indicted over Alleged 2012 Campaign Finance Violations
Washington Post – Sean Sullivan and Matea Gold | Published: 8/5/2015

A supporter and onetime close adviser to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul was charged with hiding secret payments to secure the endorsement of an Iowa lawmaker during the 2012 presidential campaign of his father, former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul. Jesse Benton, who had been tapped to run America’s Liberty, a super PAC that supports Rand Paul’s presidential bid, is accused of paying more than $70,000 to former Iowa Sen. Kent Sorenson to win his support ahead of the state’s caucuses in 2012. Also charged are John Tate and Dimitrios Kesari, who worked with Benton on the 2012 campaign. The three are accused of submitting false expense reports to the FEC. Benton is also accused of lying to the FBI.

Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving
New York Times – Nicholas Confessore, Sarah Cohen, and Karen Yourish | Published: 8/1/2015

An analysis of FEC reports and IRS records shows the fundraising arms race has made most of the presidential hopefuls dependent on a small pool of the richest Americans. Fewer than four hundred families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the 2016 campaign. The intensifying reliance on big money in politics mirrors the concentration of American wealth more broadly. In an era when a tiny fraction of the country’s population has accumulated a huge proportion of its wealth, the rich have also been empowered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and other regulatory changes to spend more on elections.

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama – Tom Albritton, Alabama’s New Ethics Executive Director, Wants to Be Fair, Consistent
AL.com – Mike Cason | Published: 7/31/2015

Tom Albritton, the new executive director of the Alabama Ethics Commission, said consistency is the key to applying a broadly written ethics law in a way that both guards the public’s trust and encourages good people to run for office. He said parts of the ethics law are nonspecific to the extent that it requires careful interpretation for every circumstance and event. “I think having broad language is a challenge to enforce consistently, and you can’t have a rigid set of rules that don’t work in the real world,” said Albritton.

California – Campaign Money Has MTA Board Members Missing Votes
Los Angeles Times – David Zahniser and Katie Shepherd | Published: 8/3/2015

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti recused himself from dozens of Metropolitan Transportation Authority board votes last year as he sought to comply with one of California’s most restrictive rules on campaign contributions. Politicians on the board are prohibited from participating in decisions on contracts if they have received political donations of more than $10 from the companies seeking the work. One of his appointees to the board, city Councilperson Mike Bonin, withdrew from 34 contract decisions. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich stepped aside on 19 votes. For ethics experts, the practice of missing votes poses a question: does it mean the system is working, because politicians are staying away from the decisions that affect their campaign donors? Or does it show that it is broken, because board members repeatedly miss major financial decisions?

California – Public Officials Named in New Findings from FBI Probe of ‘Shrimp Boy’ Chow
San Francisco Examiner – Jonah Owen Lamb | Published: 8/4/2015

Evidence from the prosecution of Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow potentially implicates a wide array of public officials in alleged bribery schemes, “pay-to-play” plots, money laundering, and bid-rigging. The federal investigation culminated in a sweeping indictment with 29 defendants. Among them was former California Sen. Leland Yee, who pleaded guilty to racketeering. Chow was charged with running a Chinese American community organization as a racketeering enterprise. A motion to dismiss the indictment included snippets of FBI reports and wiretap evidence that suggest San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and others participated in public corruption schemes but were spared prosecution “due to their political affiliations.’

Maine – Anti-Gay Marriage Group Suffers another Loss in Bid to Conceal Donors to Maine Campaign
Portland Press Herald – Steve Mistler | Published: 8/4/2015

Maine’s highest court rejected a national group’s latest bid to shield the identities of donors who contributed to its effort to overturn the state law allowing same-sex marriage. The state ethics commission fined the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) $50,250 last year for violating campaign finance laws and ordered it to file a report revealing the names of those who supported the referendum. NOM paid the fine but asked the Supreme Judicial Court to allow it to hold off on filing the report until the court considers its appeal of the commission’s decision. The justices denied that request, saying it is unlikely the organization will be successful in its challenge of the ethics panel’s ruling.

Massachusetts – 2 Businesses Fight State Ban on Campaign Contributions
MassLive.com – Shira Schoenberg | Published: 8/4/2015

An advocacy group and two business owners asked a judge to grant a preliminary injunction temporarily halting Massachusetts’ restrictions on corporate political giving. Under the state’s current campaign finance law, businesses are not allowed to contribute directly to candidates. Unions can contribute up to $15,000 to a candidate and individuals can contribute up to $1,000. Businesses cannot establish and fund PACs that donate to candidates, even though unions can. “Government can’t pick winners and losers in the political marketplace,” Jim Manley, senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute, told reporters before the hearing.

New York – JCOPE Denies Request to Shield Abortion-Issue Donors
Capital New York – Jimmy Vielkind | Published: 8/4/2015

The Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) rejected applications from Family Planning Advocates of New York and the state Civil Liberties Union for exemptions that would allow the groups to keep their most generous donors secret. The 2011 law that created JCOPE allows it to grant exemptions if donors to a specific group – advocacy organizations categorized as 501(c)4 groups – are likely to face “harm, threats, harassment, or reprisals” if their giving becomes known to the public. Commissioners who opposed the exemptions expressed concern that the standard of evidence in the applications, which detailed episodes of perceived threats, was insufficient.

Pennsylvania – City Adopts New Reporting Requirements for Campaign Financing
Philadelphia Daily News – Wendy Ruderman | Published: 7/31/2015

Mayor Michael Nutter signed legislation that requires non-candidate groups that fundraise for the purpose of influencing elections to submit campaign finance reports every two weeks, beginning six weeks before an election. Non-candidate groups include nonprofit organizations, corporations, partnerships, and PACs. Disclosures regarding electioneering communications, such TV ads purchased by non-candidate parties, are also required within 50 days of an election. The bill followed a Democratic mayoral primary in which a significant amount of so-called dark money was spent by independent groups to influence the race.

Pennsylvania – City’s Campaign Contribution Limits at Heart of Fattah Case
Philadelphia Inquirer – Chris Brennan | Published: 7/30/2015

U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah had a plan as he prepared for Philadelphia’s 2007 mayoral race: raise six-figure contributions from wealthy donors and, if challenged, use the courts to overturn the city’s donation limits. The conventional wisdom in political and legal circles at the time was that those caps would not survive a legal challenge. A Philadelphia judge, as expected, overturned the limits in December 2006. Commonwealth Court put them back in a ruling that landed just six weeks before the mayoral primary. The ruling set Fattah on a course that ultimately led to his recent indictment on corruption charges as he tried to circumvent the local law.

Pennsylvania – Reading Councilman Pleads Guilty in Corruption Case
Philadelphia Inquirer – Jeremy Roebuck | Published: 8/5/2015

Reading City Council President Francisco Acosta pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe of $1,800 in return for his effort to repeal the city’s campaign finance law. Court documents do not identify the public official who offered the bribe, but said the official had the power to sign city council legislation into law. The only person with that power is Mayor Vaughn Spencer, whose home was raided in July by the FBI. “Public Official No. 1,” as court documents described the person offering the bribe, had taken campaign donations that violated city law. The official believed “his best chance of winning re-election would require keeping these contributions and raising additional funds which would be prohibited by the code of ethics,” according to the documents.

Texas – Appellate Panel Says Texas ID Law Broke U.S. Voting Rights Act
New York Times – Erik Eckholm | Published: 8/5/2015

A federal appeals court struck down Texas’s voter-identification law, ruling it violates the Voting Rights Act. Texas was allowed to use the law during the 2014 elections, thereby requiring an estimated 13.6 million registered voters to have a photo ID to cast a ballot. The ruling was a victory, although not a sweeping one, for Democrats and minority rights groups. Last year, a federal judge called the law the equivalent of a poll tax, but the three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Instead, it sent the law back to the lower court to consider how to fix the discriminatory effects. The state can appeal the unanimous decision to the full appeals court, or ask for a U.S. Supreme Court review.

Texas – Paxton Surrenders in Securities Fraud Indictment
Texas Tribune – Patrick Svitek | Published: 8/3/2015

Facing three felony counts of securities law violations, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was booked on felony securities fraud charges. The grand jury indictments show that two first-degree fraud charges were based on Paxton’s efforts in July 2011, when he was a member of the state House, to sell stock on behalf of Servergy. According to the indictments, Paxton failed to tell stock buyers that he had been compensated with 100,000 shares of Servergy stock. Paxton also said he was an investor in Servergy when he was not, the charges indicated. A third count accused Paxton of acting as an investment adviser representative without registering with the State Securities Board. Paxton is not required to leave office while he fights the charges.

State and Federal Communications produces a weekly summary of national news, offering more than 60 articles per week focused on ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance.

A new bill entered in the U.S. Senate would permanently ban members of both houses of Congress from ever becoming lobbyists. The legislation was introduced on August 5 by Sens. Michael Bennet and Al Franken.

The Senate bill, entitled the Close the Revolving Door Act of 2015, additionally increases certain lobbying bans for senior Senate and House staff members from one year to six years after leaving the job. Another change the bill would implement is requiring lobbying firms to disclose paid consultant services by any employee who is a former senator or representative and certain former congressional staffers who made at least $100,000 in any one year, worked for four or more years as a staff member, or held a senior staff position in Congress. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for violating the Lobbying Disclosure Act, bans lobbyists from joining congressional staffs or committee staffs that they lobbied for six years, and creates a website to provide searchable disclosures on lobbying activities.

“The revolving door between Congress and the lobbying industry is a problem that needs fixing, because our democracy can’t function the way it’s supposed to when big interests have more power than the American people,” Franken said in a press release.

Lobbying

“Jon Stewart’s Next Act: Lobbyist?” by Darren Samuelsohn for Politico

California: “Measure Seeks to Reveal Names, Funding behind Indirect Lobbying” by Emily Green for San Francisco Chronicle

New York: “JCOPE Denies Request to Shield Abortion-Issue Donors” by Jimmy Vielkind for Capital New York

Campaign Finance

“Super PAC Doppelgangers Eclipse Candidates in Campaign Money Chase” by Michael Beckel for Center for Public Integrity

California: “Campaign Money Has MTA Board Members Missing Votes” by David Zahniser and Katie Shepherd for Los Angeles Times

Maine: “Anti-Gay Marriage Group Suffers another Loss in Bid to Conceal Donors to Maine Campaign” by Steve Mistler for Portland Press Herald

New York: “New York State Lawmakers Spend Millions in Campaign Funds on Legal Fees” by Susanne Craig and Thomas Kaplan for New York Times

Ethics

Massachusetts: “Voters May Have a Say on Boosting Public Records Access” by Todd Wallack for Boston Globe

Redistricting

New York: “Democrats Unveil a Plan to Fight Gerrymandering” by Jonathan Martin for New York Times

Lobbying

New York: “Documents Reveal New York State Agency’s Role in Adirondacks Mining Proposal” by Susanne Craig for New York Times

Wisconsin: “Legislation Seeks to Limit Lobbying in City Government” by Simon Schatzberg for WISC

Campaign Finance

“Limits Unclear on New Political Party ‘Slush Funds’” by Carrie Levine for Center for Responsive Politics

Arizona: “Attorney General Flips, Bans Public Funds for Anti-Pot Campaign” by Howard Fischer (Capitol Media Services) for Arizona Daily Sun

Ethics

“House Ethics Panel Clears Lawmakers over 2013 Azerbaijan Trip” by John Bresnahan for Politico

California: “City Ethics Commission Picks Get Political” by Greg Moran for San Diego Union-Tribune

Texas: “Paxton Surrenders in Securities Fraud Indictment” by Patrick Svitek for Texas Tribune

Elections

“Donald Trump Is Cash Cow for GOP State Parties” by Kyle Chaney, Katie Glueck, and Eli Stokols for Politico

California: “Recall Election History Bodes Ill for Richard Pan Opponents” by Jeremy White for Sacramento Bee

Procurement

“As Cloud of Corruption Passes in D.C., Regular Dysfunction Back in Spotlight” by Aaron Davis for Washington Post

Legislation banning paid lobbyists from serving on boards, commissions, or committees was introduced in Common Council on July 7.

Currently, legislative committees are comprised of alders and appointed city residents. As appointed members are chosen based on expertise, lobbyists who are appointed often have potential conflicts of interest between their committee duties and their activities for paying clients.

By banning paid lobbyists, the sponsors hope to remove possible undue influence and ensure good government practices.

On August 1, the city of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada’s lobbyist registry came into effect. The new bylaw requires lobbyists to register at least one day before lobbying a member of council and any person on his or her staff or an employee of the city who is a member of the city’s senior management team. The law includes exemptions to registrations, as well enforcement powers and responsibilities of the lobbyist registrar.

Lobbying

Maryland: “Gun Groups Are No Longer Major Spenders in Maryland Lobbying Game” by Josh Hicks for Washington Post

Ohio: “Three on Columbus Council Paid for Football Trip after Bribe Probe Revealed” by Lucas Sullivan for Columbus Dispatch

Campaign Finance

“‘Dark Money’: ALEC wants image makeover” by Tarini Parti for Politico

“Scam PACs Keep Money Churning, but Not to Candidates” by Will Tucker for Center for Responsive Politics

Georgia: “Student Project Leads to Ethics Investigation, Subpoenas” by Jodie Fleischer for WSB

New Mexico: “Council Rejects Increase in Campaign Matching Funds” by Daniel Chacón for Santa Fe New Mexican

Pennsylvania: “City’s Campaign Contribution Limits at Heart of Fattah Case” by Chris Brennan for Philadelphia Inquirer

Pennsylvania: “City Adopts New Reporting Requirements for Campaign Financing” by Wendy Ruderman for Philadelphia Daily News

Virginia: “Clinton Donors Also Pumped Millions into McAuliffe’s Coffers” by Laura Vozzella for Washington Post

Ethics

Alabama: “Tom Albritton, Alabama’s New Ethics Executive Director, Wants to Be Fair, Consistent” by Mike Cason for AL.com

Elections

“Billionaire Koch Brothers’ Network Takes Cue from Obama’s Playbook” by Matea Gold for Washington Post

Lobbying

“Billionaire Donors Bypass K Street” by Kate Ackley for Roll Call

Nebraska: “Number of Groups Hiring Nebraska Lobbyists Reaches New High” by Grant Schulte (Associated Press) for Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Campaign Finance

New Jersey: “Super PACs Start Dominating Local Races in N.J.” by Matt Friedman for Politico

Ethics

Missouri: “McCaskill Calls for Advocacy Group to Give Missouri Capital Interns ‘Someone to Talk to’” by Jo Mannies for KCUR

New York: “Despite Unprecedented Scandal, Calls for Special Ethics Session Fall on Deaf Ears” by David Howard King for Gotham Gazette

Oregon: “Ethics Reforms after Kitzhaber: Going slow means getting it right, Oregon lawmakers argue” by Denis Theriault for Portland Oregonian

Pennsylvania: “Pa. Congressman Fattah Indicted on Corruption Charges from 2007 Mayor’s Race” by Paul Kane and Mike DeBonis for Washington Post

Elections

“Facebook Expands in Politics, and Campaigns Find Much to Like” by Ashley Parker for New York Times

“A Dream Undone” by Jim Rutenberg for New York Times

On July 28, proposals to reform federal lobbying laws were issued by an American Bar Association task force. The proposals include requiring lobbyists to register if they make more than one lobbying contact, receive more than $2,500 in compensation, or make expenditures of more than $10,000 per quarter and spend 12 hours or more per quarter conducting lobbying activity.

Other suggested requirements include disclosing the names of individuals providing “support for lobbying through strategic planning, public communications and polling operations.”

A voter initiative is being developed in Orange County, California, to create a county ethics commission. The commission would enforce campaign finance limits for countywide offices as well as public ethics, including gifts and conflicts of interest.

The commission would also have a hotline where citizens could provide tips regarding ethics issues and would have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents.

If the initiative qualifies, it would appear on the November 2016 ballot. A version of the proposed initiative is available here.