U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee has introduced legislation requiring ethical guidelines be followed by states before those states be allowed to administer certain federal funds.

House Bill 0554, The Make State Government More Open, Honest, and Transparent Act, suspends the authority of a state to administer funds under federal block grant programs if the state does not enact certain conflict of interest protections. These include banning state contractors from making state financial contributions, prohibiting state legislators from requiring their staff make political contributions, and requiring state legislators to annually disclose their own financial interests.

“My legislation is simple: it raises the bar for states to be more open and transparent with their constituents so that we can begin to restore public trust in government,” Kildee said in his press release.

A bill introduced in the Rhode Island House earlier this month would prohibit lobbyists from making any political contribution to any member of the General Assembly in any year during the period from January 1 through July 1, unless the Legislature has adjourned its business for the year prior to July 1 of the session year.

House Bill 5036, introduced by Representatives John Lombardi and Raymond A. Hull, amends Rhode Island Revised Statute §22-10, a part of the lobbying law repealed and replaced on January 1, 2017, with the Rhode Island Lobbying Reform Act. The Act repealed the lobbying laws in Title 22 and Title 42 of the state’s statutes and enacted a new consolidated code section covering both the legislative and executive branches of government.

The bill is currently in the House Judiciary committee and would take effect upon its passage.

Five City Council members recently asked the Los Angeles Ethics Commission to address the issue of real estate developers making political contributions.

Developers can appear to be benefiting when elected officials they’ve supported grant them land-use perks such as zoning exemptions.

This campaign finance reform initiative focuses on restricting donations specifically from developers, contractors, and subcontractors whose projects are being reviewed by the city.

Political Contributions Compliance Laws for Government Relations Professionals, provides reference information on what political contribution activities are allowed, and not allowed, under various laws at every government level.

This online database has information for every jurisdiction with precise listings and summaries of each state law, contribution limits and specific prohibitions, with full descriptions of registration and reporting requirements.

Learn more about all of the Online Publications for Government Relations Professionals from State and Federal Communications, or try a free demo today to see all the ways this online publication can help you in your political contribution compliance efforts.

Oral arguments were heard last week in a 2015 lawsuit filed in Massachusetts Suffolk County Superior Court challenging state laws allowing unions to make political contributions while barring corporations from doing the same.

The lawsuit is being brought by the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute on behalf of two state business corporations against Michael Sullivan, the director of the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF), which enforces the law. In 1A AUTO, INC. v Sullivan, the plaintiffs allege, “There is no legitimate justification for allowing unions to contribute thousands of dollars to candidates, parties, and political committees, while completely banning any contributions from businesses.” The plaintiffs argue the law violates “equal protection, free speech, and free association protected by the Massachusetts and United States constitutions” and are seeking a permanent injunction preventing the OCPF from enforcing the law banning corporate contributions.

Both parties made their arguments on December 7 in front of Judge Paul Wilson, who will decide the previously filed motions for summary judgement.

National:

Inside Facebook’s (Totally Insane, Unintentionally Gigantic, Hyperpartisan) Political-Media Machine
New York Times Magazine – John Herrman | Published: 8/24/2016

Facebook, in the years leading up to this year’s election, has not just become nearly ubiquitous among American internet users; it has centralized online news consumption in an unprecedented way. According to the company, its site is used by more than 200 million people in the U.S. each month. A 2016 Pew study found 44 percent of Americans read or watch news on Facebook. Its algorithms pick text, photos, and video produced and posted by established media organizations large and small, local and national, openly partisan or nominally unbiased. But there is also a new and distinctive sort of operation that has become hard to miss: political news and advocacy pages made specifically for Facebook, uniquely positioned and cleverly engineered to reach audiences exclusively in the context of the news feed.

Study: Outside groups, secret money far more prominent than ever before
Center for Responsive Politics – Robert Maguire | Published: 8/24/2016

A new study shows outside groups that can raise and spend unlimited money, sometimes without disclosing the sources of their funds, make up a larger portion of election spending than at any point in the last 16 years. The two main proponents of the growth in outside groups’ overall share of election advertising are super PACs and politically active nonprofits. The former only came into existence in 2010, and since then has come to dominate the field. Politically active nonprofits, on the other hand, have been active in every cycle going back to 2000, but what may be the same in quality is not the same in quantity. These groups are the driving force behind the growth in “dark money” in elections.

Federal:

Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign
New York Times – Amy Chozick and Steve Eder | Published: 8/20/2016

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has thrived on the generosity of foreign donors who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the charity. But as Hillary Clinton seeks the White House, the funding has become an Achilles’ heel for her campaign and, if she is victorious, potentially her administration. With Mrs. Clinton facing accusations of favoritism toward foundation donors during her time as secretary of state, the organization will no longer accept corporate contributions should she win in November. But while the move did not resolve the question of how her administration would handle longtime donors seeking help from the U.S., or whose interests might conflict with the country’s own.

The Lobbying Law at the Center of Manafort’s Trouble with Ukraine
The Hill – Megan Wilson | Published: 8/21/2016

Paul Manafort resigned as Donald Trump’s campaign chairperson after he had been ensnared in a wide-ranging Justice Department investigation about U.S. connections to the alleged corruption by former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Questions have been swirling about Manafort’s representation of Yanukovych for years, but recent reports have intensified the drum beats about whether he acted unlawfully as a “foreign agent” by lobbying for a foreign leader without registering that activity. The recent revelations, if true, suggest Manafort could face legal troubles stemming from violation of a World War II-era lobbying statute, the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

From the States and Municipalities:

California – Little-Regulated Accounts Offer a Path to Political Clout in Sacramento
Marin Independent Journal – Jessica Calefati and Kaitlyn Landgraf (Bay Area News Group) | Published: 8/20/2016

Ballot measure committees, the accounts that are supposed to promote or oppose state and local initiatives, are in practice paying for California lawmakers’ consultants and polling firms, new suits, and trips to Mexico. And the money for the politicians’ perks comes in the form of five-figure donations from the same special interests that state rules were intended to curtail. Under the vague language of the law, elected officials can legally operate these committees, but the way they are doing it appears to bend state laws and rules governing how the money may be spent. No state agency adequately monitors the situation. Of the nearly $3 million spent by these committees since 2013, only one dollar out of every four dollars was used to help pass or defeat measures that actually made it to the ballot.

Connecticut – Malloy Releases Funds Withheld from CT Watchdog Agencies
CT Mirror – Keith Phaneuf | Published: 8/19/2016

After criticism from lawmakers and good government groups, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy’s administration relented and restored the $183,000 they had proposed to cut from three watchdog agencies. Following a meeting with the heads of the Office of State Ethics, Freedom of Information Commission, and State Elections Enforcement Commission, the Office of Policy and Management announced it would restore the funding. Office of Policy and Management Secretary Ben Barnes steered clear of acknowledging the budget holdbacks would have violated a 2004 law that prohibits the executive branch from unilaterally cutting the three watchdog agencies. Carol Carson, executive director of the Office of State Ethics, said the agencies are committed to prudently managing their budgets and whenever possible return money at the end of the year to the general fund.

Florida – On 2nd Try, Miami-Dade Commissioners Approve Petition Count
Miami Herald – Douglas Hanks | Published: 8/22/2016

Miami-Dade County commissioners agreed to start counting nearly 130,000 signatures tied to a proposed ballot measure on new campaign finance rules, but warned they still might halt the proposal over concerns raised by county attorneys. Only about 52,000 valid signatures are needed to win a spot on the November ballot. The proposed rules would impose a broad package of restrictions against campaign donations by vendors and lobbyists, prime sources of financial support for county officeholders.

Massachusetts – Donors Behind Charter Push Keep to the Shadows
Boston Globe – Mark Levenson | Published: 8/20/2016

A new $2.3 million ad boosting the expansion of charter schools in Massachusetts lists the campaign’s top five donors on screen, in accordance with state law. But the bland names, including Strong Economy for Growth and Education Reform Now Advocacy, give no hint of who is writing the checks. Four of the five donors to the pro-charter committee are nonprofit groups that do not, under state law, have to disclose their funders, allowing the individuals backing the effort to remain anonymous. The cloak of secrecy surrounding the financing of what could be the most expensive ballot campaign in state history has frustrated election officials and underscored the proliferation of untraceable money in political races across the country.

Missouri – Judge Tosses Out Effort to Keep Missouri Campaign Contribution Limits Off Ballot
St. Louis Post-Dispatch – Kurt Erickson | Published: 8/25/2016

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Patricia Joyce rejected an attempt to remove a voter initiative from the November 8 ballot that would impose limits on campaign contributions in Missouri for the first time since 2008. Attorney Chuck Hatfield said in court that the initiative unfairly limits some classes of businesses and associations from giving money to campaigns, but Joyce ruled the proposal mirrors federal law and is not unconstitutional. The decision will be appealed.

New York – Cuomo Signs Ethics Bill, with Few Cheers
Albany Times Union – Chris Bragg | Published: 8/24/2016

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that reforms the state’s lobbying, ethics, and campaign finance laws. But watchdog groups criticized the bill for what they say is a failure to address conditions that have fueled some of Albany’s corruption cases in recent years. The new law includes restrictions on independent expenditure groups intended to reduce coordination with a candidate’s campaign. Another provision requires issue-oriented lobbying groups, designated as 501(c)(4) organizations, that spend more than $15,000 in a year on lobbying to disclose donors who give more than $2,500. The previous limits had been $50,000 and $5,000.

New York – NY State Ethics Watchdog Investigating Nonprofit with Ties to Large Corporate Political Donor
Nonprofit Quarterly – Larry Kaplan | Published: 8/23/2016

The New York Joint Commission on Public Ethics is looking into the nonprofit Pledge 2 Protect, created in 2013 to fight a marine waste transfer station on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. By law, nonprofits like Pledge 2 Protect must, if they spend more than $50,000 on lobbying, report the names of donors who contribute more than $5,000. Those amounts would be cut in half under a law awaiting Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signature. Almost $700,000 made its way to Pledge 2 Protect the year it was formed with no indication of where the money really came from. The money was given first to a law firm, then to the group, so the only name that had to be disclosed was that of the law firm, not the actual donors. Among the opponents of the waste transfer station was Glenwood Management, a real estate firm that figured prominently in the corruption case against former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Tennessee – Power Opens Door to Sexual Harassment
The Tennessean – Dave Boucher and Joel Ebert | Published: 8/21/2016

Powerful institutions and harassment at times go hand-in-hand. State Capitols are sometimes hotbeds of sexual harassment themselves. Most Legislatures are largely male, part-time, and require members to travel away from home, creating a fraternity atmosphere. In Tennessee, where 22 out of 132 lawmakers are women and 85 percent are white, the political culture has included limited policies and safeguards, leaving women with few options.

Wisconsin – Ethics Commission Will Be Able to Make Political Donations
Minneapolis Star Tribune – Scott Bauer (Associated Press) | Published: 8/23/2016

Members of the Wisconsin Ethics Commission will be able to make political donations. The commission voted to continue with the current practice allowing them to give to candidates and campaign committees. Nothing in state law bars Ethics Commission members from donating to the very politicians they are regulating. Commission members are partisan appointees, unlike their predecessors on the Government Accountability Board who were judges and prohibited under the law from donating.

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.

JCOPE unanimously passed “emergency” regulations in anticipation of Gov. Andrew Cuomo signing Senate Bill 8160. Under Senate Bill 8160, any charitable organization donating over $2,500 to New York lobbying campaigns would be required to disclose all of its donors, including those unrelated to lobbying efforts.

JCOPE’s new regulations mostly mirror Senate Bill 8160, as any issue-oriented lobbying groups expending more than $15,000 a year would be required to disclose donors of more than $2,500.

The regulations become effective, if and when, Cuomo signs Senate Bill 8160. If Senate Bill 8160 is signed into law, the new reporting thresholds will retroactively include donations and lobbying spending beginning July 1, 2016.

The Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission has issued guidance relating to gifts to public officials following the tragic death of a state lawmaker’s son.

State Rep. Scott Schwab’s son, Caleb, died Sunday from injuries sustained while on a waterslide at a Kansas City waterpark.

The commission announced any contributions from lobbyists to a GoFundMe campaign set up for the family would be subject to the state’s $40-per-year limit on gifts. Lobbyists must also report their contributions to the state.

Photo of Rep. Scott Schwab courtesy of the Kansas State Legislature website. 

Lobbying

“Think Tank Scholar or Corporate Consultant? It Depends on the Day” by Eric Lipton, Nicholas Confessore, and Brooke Williams for New York Times

Tennessee: “Texts Show Ex-Haslam Aide’s Chats During Cooling Off Period” by Dave Boucher and Nate Rau for The Tennessean

Campaign Finance

Alabama: “How the University of Alabama System Funneled $1.4 Million Through a ‘Dark Money’ Web” by Connor Sheets for AL.com

Ethics

California: “Stockton Mayor Arrested, Accused of Holding Strip Poker Game at Youth Camp” by Nashelly Chavez and Bill Lendelof for Sacramento Bee

Florida: “First Opa-locka Administrator Charged in Major FBI Corruption Probe” by Jay Weaver and Michael Sallah for Miami Herald

Hawaii: “How Ethics Commission Upheaval Is Playing Out in The Mayor’s Race” by Nick Grube for Honolulu Civil Beat

Pennsylvania: “Pennsylvania Attorney General Goes on Trial in Leak Case” by David Dekok for Reuters

Elections

“The Crusade of a Democratic Superlawyer with Multimillion-Dollar Backing” by Robert Barnes for Washington Post

“How Will the Internet Change Political Advertising?” by Robert Gebelhoff for Washington Post

Procurement

District of Columbia: “Vincent Orange to Resign from D.C. Council After Fury Over Chamber of Commerce Job” by Fenit Nirappil for Washington Post

A bipartisan majority of lawmakers is calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution overturning the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

In the Citizens United decision, the Court ruled corporations and unions should be considered individuals for purposes of political contributions; therefore, restricting their donations to candidates is a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech.

New York is now one of 16 states—and the first with a Republican-controlled chamber—supporting an amendment in response to the decision.

St. Louis Alderman Scott Ogilvie recently introduced legislation to limit campaign contributions to local candidates.

Board Bill No. 53 prohibits candidates from accepting contributions exceeding $10,000 per city election from any person, entity, or committee. The amount would increase in April in each odd numbered year to coincide with any increase in the consumer price index.

Ogilvie’s proposal also defines election periods for the purposes of contribution limits, creates a Municipal Officials and Officers Ethics Commission, makes contributions from minors age 16 or younger attributable to parents or guardians, and sets penalties for violations of the bill.

If passed, the ordinance would be effective April 6, 2017.

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

At any given time, more than 1,000 legislative bills, which can affect how you do business as a government affairs professional, are being discussed in federal, state, and local jurisdictions. These bills are summarized in State and Federal Communications’ digital encyclopedias for lobbying laws, political contributions, and procurement lobbying and can be found in the client portion of our website.

Summaries of major bills are also included in monthly email updates sent to all clients. The chart below shows the number of bills we are tracking in regard to lobbying laws, political contributions, and procurement lobbying.

Bernalillo County Commissioner Debbie O’Malley is requesting the county attorney investigate donations to the political action committee (PAC) New Mexicans for New Mexico, which is supporting County Commission candidates Steven Michael Quezada and Robert Chavez.

There is a $1,000 cap for contributions from people doing business with Bernalillo County, but disclosure reports reveal owners of businesses with city contracts donating to the PAC in amounts exceeding the limit.

The matter has been referred to the county’s ethics commission for further investigation.

On May 17, three separate bills regarding lobbyists and political donors were introduced in the General Assembly.

If all three bills pass, political committees would be required to report a contributor’s occupation and employment information (Senate Bill 224), lobbyists would be required to disclose the source and amount of received payments (Senate Bill 225), and lobbyists would be required to pay a registration fee or face certain penalties (House Bill 385).