January 18, 2013 •
Changes May Be Coming to Kansas Lobbyist and PAC Fees
Ethics commission will likely propose modest increase
The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission is seeking changes to the fees it charges for lobbyist and political action committee registrations. The commission’s executive director Carol Williams said the commission has not determined the amount of the increase it plans to propose, but that it will likely be a modest amount.
The fees for lobbyists and PACs have not increased in 12 years and the commission receives about a third of its funding through fees. The commission is also recommending an increase in the threshold amount at which a person must register as a lobbyist, from the current $100 in expenditures for lobbying to $500. The current threshold has not increased in 25 years, and the commission believes the proposed amount is a reasonable inflation factor.
August 3, 2011 •
Ask the Experts – Lobbyist’s Personal Delivery of Political Contributions
Here is your chance to “Ask the Experts” at State and Federal Communications, Inc.
Q. Are there prohibitions on registered lobbyists hand-delivering a political contribution check [personal, corporate, or PAC] to a candidate at the candidate’s fundraiser?
A. Forty-six states do not regulate the personal delivery of campaign contributions by contributions. Of course, this assumes all other things being legal, such as session bans, a ban on corporate contributions, a ban on personal contributions by lobbyists, or personally delivering contributions while at the state capitol.
Alaska law provides that lobbyists may not host a fundraising event, directly or indirectly collect contributions, deliver contributions to a candidate, or participate in fund-raising activities.
Kentucky law prohibits a legislative agent from exercising control over a campaign contribution from a PAC and directing it to a specific state legislator, candidate, or committee. This prohibition includes hand-delivering a contribution.
In Maryland, a lobbyist may not, for the benefit of the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, or comptroller, member of the general assembly, or candidate for election to these offices solicit or transmit a political contribution from any person or political committee.
South Carolina has very strict rules governing a lobbyist’s involvement when it comes to political contributions. Not only are lobbyists prohibited from making personal political contributions — even as a constituent — they are prohibited from hand-delivering a corporate or PAC check to a candidate at the candidate’s fundraiser.
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.
September 21, 2010 •
Campaign Finance News from Oklahoma
Ballot issue PACs allowed to receive contributions from other PACs
The Oklahoma Ethics Commission has announced it will not enforce a law banning PAC-to-PAC transfers of funds in an instance where one PAC supports or opposes a ballot issue.
The commission recognizes the rule, as written, is unconstitutional because of the U.S. Supreme Court case “First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti”. The ethics commission will likely rewrite the rule in 2011.
September 20, 2010 •
South Carolina Defines Committee Too Broadly
Court Finds Part of Ethics Statute Unconstitutional
A U.S. District Court has invalidated a South Carolina statute defining committees, including those commonly known as PACs. In South Carolina Citizens for Life, Inc. v Krawcheck, the Court found the South Carolina Ethics Act placed significant burdens on groups qualifying as committees without giving meaningful consideration of a group’s major purpose, threatening to chill their First Amendment rights. Specifically, the definition of committee in S.C.C. §8-13-1300(6) could encompass any group, without reference to the entity’s major purpose, and was unconstitutionally overbroad.
Photo of the South Carolina statehouse by Nikopoley on Wikipedia.
State and Federal Communications, Inc. provides research and consulting services for government relations professionals on lobbying laws, procurement lobbying laws, political contribution laws in the United States and Canada. Learn more by visiting stateandfed.com.