The Sunset Commission, a legislative body created by the Texas Legislature to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies, will seek public input during its scheduled review of the Texas Ethics Commission.

During the evaluation of the Ethics Commission’s mission and performance, submitted comments and suggestions will be accepted until the suggested date of November 21. The Sunset Commission then anticipates it will issue a report in March 2012 followed by a public hearing with testimony in April.

Based on the public input and the report, any recommendations to the legislature will be submitted at the start of its next session in January 2013.

Some of the duties the Texas Ethics Commission administers and enforces are the election code concerning political contributions, expenditures and political advertising, and lobbying registration, reports and activities.

The announcement of the review can be found here.

Photo of the Texas State Capitol by LoneStarMike on Wikipedia.

Only lobbyists in Alaska who are constituents in a state candidate’s newly certified district may donate to a candidate’s campaign, an Advisory Opinion from the Alaska Public Offices Commission has declared.

Because a lobbyist residing in a candidate’s district may contribute to a candidate, Representative Bob Lynn requested an opinion regarding whether a lobbyist in his current district could donate to his campaign when he or she may not be a constituent in his proposed new voting district.

Advisory Opinion 11-14-CD concludes candidates “will only be able to accept donations from lobbyists residing in the new district.”

Presently, only candidates for the proposed new districts, and not the current districts, are being certified by the Division of Elections. In its analysis, the Advisory Opinion also articulates, “Whether or not a lobbyist resides in the candidate’s district is determined on the day the contribution is accepted.”

Executive Sourcebook on Lobbying Laws:

1. We are separating the penalties so you will see what they are for registration, reporting, and gift violations.

2. Does the jurisdiction have a document retention policy?

3. Is gift splitting allowed?

4. We are also separating the gift restrictions for lobbyists and non-lobbyists.

Executive’s Sourcebook on Political Contributions:

1. What is the jurisdiction’s document retention policy?

2. What restrictions are there on fundraising, as applied both to corporations attending a political event and as applied to corporations holding its own fundraiser?

Executive’s Sourcebook on Procurement Lobbying:

1. Restrictions on pre-RFP communications between a bidder and the procurement department?

2. Are there any post-RFP “cone of silence” restrictions?

3. Difference between “bidder” and “contractor.”

It continues to be our goal to be your #1 online resource for lobbying, political contributions, and procurement lobbying.

Until next month, let your fingers do the walking at www.stateandfed.com and see the amount of information available to you and your organization.

Elizabeth Z. Bartz
President and CEO

Two San Bernardino County supervisors will introduce a proposal at the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 27, 2011 which would create a law regulating political contributions for county elections.

The supervisors hope to impose and enforce limits on contributions from individuals, businesses, and political action committees contributing to county elections.

The image of the San Bernardino County Seal by Jetijones on Wikipedia.

This week’s Highlighted Site of the Week is the political contributions database on OpenSecrets.org. The Get local! tracker provides charts, lists, and interactive maps for searches by state or even down to the zip code level.

According to the site, “These profiles can show you who’s making the big political contributions in your state, as well as where the money’s coming from (by city, by zip code, and graphically with our “money maps”). You’ll also find links to a money profile of your senators and representative, with a detailed look at where their campaign warchest came from.”

Each search provides a summary of political contributions, from which you can drill down to top contributors, top recipients, and presidential campaign contributions. You can also search representatives from your own, or other Congressional  Districts. You can also find search results for previous election cycles.

A big thank you goes to State and Federal Communications Research Associate Sarah Kovit for finding this Highlighted Site.

Photo of the U.S. Capitol with the flag by Florian Hirzinger on Wikipedia.

We now provide information on lobbying, political contributions, and procurement lobbying for:

Hampton, Virginia

Hollywood, Florida

We now provide information on lobbying, political contributions, and procurement lobbying for Miami, Florida; Pembroke Pines, Florida; and Vancouver, Washington on our website.

The image of North America by Bosonic dressing on Wikipedia.

By Labor Day, our clients will find 36 additional municipalities included on our website. As they are completed, we will update our postings so you can check out the additional resources.

Right now, we have provided information on lobbying, political contributions, and procurement lobbying for Alexandria, Virginia (my former home) and Tacoma, Washington.

In the future look for additional cities in New York, Arizona, and Michigan.

A proposed executive order requiring vendors submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose political contributions and expenditures has sparked a legislative response.

An amendment was added to HR1540, a fiscal national defense authorization bill, which passed last week, precluding an executive agency from requiring a vendor to disclose political contributions as a condition of contract participation.

Additionally, two companion bills opposing the proposed executive order were also introduced into the house and senate. SB1100 and HR2008, titled “Keeping Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011”, explicitly prohibit an executive agency from requiring submission of political information, and prohibit an agency from using political information as a factor in consideration of whether to award a contract. The bills’ definition of political information means information relating to political spending, including contributions, independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

Previously, a congressional hearing was also held concerning the proposed executive order.

Photo of the United States Capitol with the flag by Florian Hirzinger on Wikipedia.

We have added three new jurisdictions for which our online clients will find comprehensive, timely, and accurate information that includes: complete calendar of reporting deadlines; critical statutory citations; extensive directories of contact information; summaries of each state law; detailed reference charts on goods and services contributions; highlights of every statute; copies of all required forms; and much more.

The new jurisdictions are:

• Doral, FL
• Henderson, NV
• Spokane, WA

The image of North America by Bosonic dressing on Wikipedia.

The Federal Election Commission issued Advisory Opinion 2010-23 denying a request allowing for political contributions to be made through cell phone texting. CTIA, a nonprofit trade association representing the wireless communications industry, proposed a program where political contributions could be made by texting five or six digit code numbers in the same manner which contributions are made for charitable donations. As proposed by CTIA, the contribution would be made at the time the phone user pays their monthly bill which would include the charge from the text pledge.

Over a 30-day period, a connection aggregator would collect contributions from all wireless service providers and then transfer the funds to the particular political committee. The Commission found the time frame for contributions to be forwarded to political committees would take longer than permissible under the law, contributions would not be segregated from other corporate funds, and CTIA’s safeguards to ensure the contributions were not from impermissible sources were inadequate.

SB 551 is a response to the recent U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield regarding the state’s Citizens’ Election Program. If signed by Governor M. Jodi Rell, the bill would limit contributions from communicator lobbyists, members of the lobbyist’s immediate family, and political committees established or controlled by the lobbyist or lobbyist’s immediate family to $100, while also banning the bundling of contributions by the same individuals.

Further, the bill expands the list of items not considered to be a contribution, while also prohibiting the knowing solicitation of contributions by state contractors, prospective state contractors, principals of state contractors, and principals of prospective state contractors from the contractor’s employees or a subcontractor or principals of a subcontractor on behalf of exploratory or candidate committees, political committees authorized to make contributions or expenditures to or for the benefit of specified candidates, or a party committee.

Additionally, grants to participating candidates would increase to $6,000,000 for the general election campaign. However, Governor Rell has previously indicated her intent to veto any bill increasing grants to participating candidates, citing state budget concerns.

Photo by jimbowen0306 in Wikipedia.