State and Federal Communications, Inc. announces Jennifer Jaketic as a new compliance assistant.

She assists in the company’s Corporate Contribution Compliance department, also known as C³, which monitors the rules associated with corporations making political contributions.

“I like obliging by the rules and the ethical considerations of campaign finance,” Jaketic added. ”I enjoy working with numbers and the compliance aspect of it, which is why my position at State and Federal is such a valuable experience.”

“We started vetting contributions for our clients in 2008 and it is a piece of business which has grown. Nola Werren, Esq. from our staff has the experience needed with Jennifer to keep the work in progress for our clients,” said President and CEO Elizabeth Bartz.

Jaketic has more than 12 years of experience in campaign finance. Immediately following graduation from George Washington University with a bachelor’s in political science, Jaketic worked for the Federal Election Commission in its Reports and Analysis division, where she reviewed campaign finance reports of Political Action Committees. Jaketic is currently pursuing a master’s degree in accounting at Cleveland State University.

Q. Are there any rules that pertain to making contributions in the weeks leading up to an election?

A. With local elections in 2015 and the upcoming 2016 elections, it is wise to know what the rules are when making contributions in the days and weeks leading up to an election.  Usually, there is a monetary threshold that must be exceeded, and typically there is a short turnaround time to disclose the contribution, usually within 24 hours. In some instances, there is an outright ban on contributions.

In California, contributions of $1,000 or more per candidate made by a major donor during the 90-day period before an election must be disclosed within 24 hours of making the contribution.  Contributions to ballot measure committees and political party committees are also included within this reporting requirement.  The candidate and the ballot measure committee must be on the ballot at the election for which the 90-day period applies.  California’s 90-day pre-election period is the longest in the country.  If numerous special elections are being held, the 90-day periods may overlap.

In Washington, a contribution of $1,000 or more per candidate made by a registered lobbyist during the 21 days before an election must be disclosed within 24 hours of making the contribution.  This includes contributions to candidates and ballot measures appearing on the ballot at the election for which the 21-day period applies, as well as contributions to political party committees and PACs.  The Washington Public Disclosure Commission has a link on its home page that allows for the electronic filing of this report.

In Florida, opposed candidates must return contributions received less than five days prior to an election.

In Tennessee, a PAC is prohibited from making a contribution to a candidate for state office after the 10th day before an election until the day of the election.

These are just a few examples.  As we always advise, verify the rules in your state before making political contributions.

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.

Q. I recently became a registered lobbyist in my company’s home state.  I am also very active politically.  Are there any restrictions on my political contributions now that I am a registered lobbyist?

A. An individual’s status as a registered lobbyist can place additional restrictions and requirements on him or her related to his or her political contributions. Some jurisdictions place strict restrictions on a lobbyist’s ability to make contributions.  South Carolina prohibits registered lobbyists from making contributions to a candidate or anyone acting on behalf of a candidate if the lobbyist engages in lobbying the public office or public body for which the candidate is seeking election.  California has a similar prohibition, providing lobbyists may not contribute to a state candidate or officeholder, or their controlled committees, if registered to lobby the governmental agency for which the candidate seeks election or to which the officeholder belongs.  Other jurisdictions limit the amount a registered lobbyist can contribute compared to a nonregistered individual.  Registered legislative and executive agents in Massachusetts may contribute no more than $200 in the aggregate to any one candidate and such candidate’s committee during a calendar year.

A number of jurisdictions require reporting of lobbyist contributions.  Pennsylvania has extensive registration and reporting requirements for lobbyists who make personal political contributions, requiring them to register with the state before making a personal contribution and to file reports on the same schedule as a PAC.  Maryland’s reporting requirements are not as extensive, requiring certain political contributions to be disclosed on the lobbyist’s activity report.

When an individual becomes a registered lobbyist, he or she must review the applicable rules on his or her political contributions.  If unsure as to the requirements, please be sure to review our website at www.stateandfed.com for up-to-date information.

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.

Corporations and labor unions will no longer be permitted to donate to political parties in Alberta. Bill 1 passed its third reading on Monday, June 22, and when signed into law, will be retroactively effective to June 15, the day the bill was introduced in the house.

Proponents of the bill agree it puts power back in the hands of citizens rather than the entities with the deepest pockets. Critics, however, argue the bill has serious loopholes as it does not address the abilities of companies and unions to guarantee loans to parties or to donate services.

On February 24, a lawsuit was filed in Suffolk County Superior Court challenging Massachusetts 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 alleges, “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.

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) adopted a regulation during its meeting on February 19 to ban political fundraisers in the homes and offices of lobbyists.

Regulation 18215 modifies the definition of “contribution” to include the value of a lobbyist home or office if the lobbyist were to host a campaign fundraiser. Previously, lobbyist fundraisers did not qualify as an otherwise prohibited contribution so long as the value of hosting the fundraiser did not exceed $500.

The change in regulation was necessary following recent amendments to the Political Reform Act effectively prohibiting all fundraisers hosted by a lobbyist or lobbying firm.

The FPPC rejected arguments to exempt hosted fundraisers for local candidates or fundraisers for which the lobbyist was reimbursed.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has published the 2015-2016 election cycle contribution limits, which have been indexed for inflation. As required by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the FEC must adjust certain contribution limits every two years.

The individual and nonmulticandidate PAC contribution limit to federal candidates has increased from $2,600 to $2,700 for both primary and general elections, allowing for a total of $5,400 for a federal candidate.

The limits on contributions by individuals to national party committees has increased from $32,400 to $33,400 per calendar year. Individuals may now contribute $100,200 per calendar year to committees of a national political party for presidential nominating conventions, to committees of a national political party for preparation for and the conduct of election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings, and to committees of a national political party for the construction, purchase, renovation, operation, and furnishing of one or more buildings for party headquarters.

Q. With the start of the New Year, are there any changes I should be aware of in political contribution limits?

 A. Aside from changes as a result of new legislation, the most common adjustment of contribution limits is indexing for inflation.  Typically, adjustments are made biennially for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index.  The Consumer Price Index is calculated by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

This concept was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976).  The court allowed federal contribution limits to be adjusted upwards at the beginning of each calendar year by the average percentage rise in the Consumer Price Index for the 12 preceding months.

The principal behind this is quite simple:  it is based on the recognition that the cost of campaigning steadily increases each year based on the increase to cost of living.  Campaign fliers, mailers, yard signs, and media buys do not cost the same in 2013 as they do in 2015.

This year, California adjusted its contribution limits for the 2015-2016 biennium.  In doing so, corporate contributions limits for general assembly candidates increased from $4,100 per election to $4,200.  Washington adjusts its limits in even-numbered years, so the 2014 corporate contribution limit of $950 per election for state legislative candidates will remain the same for 2015.   Illinois adjusts its limits in odd-numbered years, so the 2014 corporate contribution limit of $10,500 per election cycle for legislative candidates will increase to $10,800.

Finally, the indexing of contribution limits usually results from amendments to a state’s administrative code as opposed to its statute.  In order to ensure compliance, a contributor should review both of these sources.

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.

The contribution limit for Maine gubernatorial candidates has been increased by $75, from $1,500 to $1,575 per election.

The contribution limit for county and municipal offices has been increased by $25, from $750 to $775 per election.

The contribution limit for state legislative candidates remains unchanged at $375 per election.

The foregoing adjustments were effective for any election held on or after January 23, 2015.

City Council has cast the first of two required votes to increase contribution limits for officeholder accounts. Ordinance 15-0062 triples total permissible contributions per calendar year to city officeholder accounts to $30,000 for council members and to $75,000 for citywide elected officials.

Individual contributor limits per calendar year will also rise from $500 to $750 for council officeholder accounts and from $500 to $1,000 for citywide officeholder accounts.

The second required vote could take place as early as the next regularly scheduled meeting on February 3, 2015.

On January 9, 2015, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the city of Houston  from enforcing its ordinance prohibiting political contributions until the first day of February prior to the day of an election.

In Gordon v. City of Houston, the United States District Court for The Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, found the city did not present any evidence showing the ordinance advanced the city’s interest of preventing the appearance of corruption. The plaintiff argued the ordinance “stifles core political activity and prevents candidates from raising funds to run effective campaigns, yet it does not further the only legitimate governmental interest relevant in this area, i.e., the prevention of corruption or its appearance.”

Because this is a preliminary injunction, the court found the public interest would not be “disserved” by its issuance, concluding, “Any harm caused to defendants by issuing the injunction does not outweigh the more serious harm that will be suffered by Gordon if the challenged ordinance is enforced against him.”

With the Senate passing the House’s omnibus bill, the limits for political contributions to federal political parties will increase when President Barack Obama signs the bill. Included as a rider with House Resolution 83 is an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 allowing additional contributions to political parties for presidential nominating conventions, for preparation for and the conduct of election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings, and for the construction, purchase, renovation, operation, and furnishing of one or more buildings for party headquarters.

An additional provision of the bill prohibits the federal government from recommending or requiring any entity submitting an offer for a federal contract to disclose, as a condition of submitting an offer, any political contribution, expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication by the offeror, its officers or directors, or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries.

Another provision included in the bill prohibits the federal government from paying for a portrait of an officer or employee of the federal government, including the president, the vice president, a member of Congress (including a delegate or a resident commissioner to Congress), the head of an executive branch agency, or the head of an office of the legislative branch.

The president has said he will sign the bill.

UDPATE: On December 16, President Obama signed the House Resolution 83 into law.

Photo of the U.S. Capitol by Martin Falbisoner on Wikimedia Commons.

On December 5, a federal judge declared Arizona’s definition of political committee “vague, overbroad, and consequently unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment.” In Galassini v. Town of Fountain Hills, Senior District Judge James A. Teilborg of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, relied on his prior determination finding A.R.S. §16-901(19) unconstitutional.

In 2011, Gina Galassini emailed 23 friends and neighbors to organize a rally opposing a bond proposal in the town of Fountain Hills. The town clerk informed Galassini her planned rally would require she “file a statement of organization before accepting contributions, making expenditures, distributing literature or circulating petitions.” However, Galassini was still able to hold her rally without registering after the District Court issued a preliminary injunction and the Town of Fountain Hills agreed to not enforce the campaign finance laws.

Friday’s decision granting declaratory relief to the plaintiff did not provide any future injunctive relief. According to the Arizona Daily Star, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Drake said his office will ask the Court to delay the effect of the ruling while an appeal is considered.

Lucie Fiset, the chief electoral officer of Quebec, plans to set up a searchable online registry for accused violators of the province’s election laws. The database is slated to be operational by March 2015. This initiative is part of Fiset’s broader strategic plan to promote transparency and tighten surveillance of political contributions and election spending.

Recently, the province has been examining links between public construction contracts, organized crime, and provincial and municipal political contributions after investigators testified about a political financing scheme involving straw men contributing to political parties using money from a third party, thus skirting contribution limits, residency requirements, and the ban on contributions from entities.

With the new database, the public and the media will be able to search or cross-reference charges against individuals, companies, organizations, and parties accused of violating election laws.