Legislation has been introduced capping political contributions for candidates seeking the leadership of a political party or electoral district candidacy under a political party. Currently, the Political Process Financing Act only limits contributions to a party or an independent candidate.

The legislation would also require disclosure of all contributions made during campaigns for party leadership or electoral districts, rather than disclosure of only the unexpended balance.

On Wednesday, October 9, a three-judge federal appeals panel heard a challenge to Hawaii’s campaign finance law, paying specific attention to the ban on political contributions by state and county contractors and the spending threshold for triggering disclosure requirements.

Although no rulings have been made, the judges did appear skeptical regarding the constitutionality of the contribution ban on contractors passed by the Legislature in 2005.

Effective today, Nevada Senate Bill 246 revises the definition of “committee for political action” to include new threshold levels.

Entities in Nevada whose primary purpose is to affect outcomes of elections are now defined as those with more than $1,500 in contributions or expenditures in a calendar year. Entities whose primary purpose is not to affect outcomes of elections have a $5,000 calendar year threshold. Committees must register with the Nevada secretary of state no later than seven days after qualifying under the revised definition.

The changes in the bill were modeled on similar statutes previously enacted by the state of Maine.

City Council passed an ordinance creating registration and reporting requirements for organizations involved in making independent expenditures. Organizations supporting or opposing any candidate for mayor, alderperson, or municipal judge are required to register with the city clerk upon accepting contributions made for, incurring obligations for, or making independent expenditures exceeding $25 in the aggregate during a calendar year. Such organizations are also required to file reports as required by Wisconsin Statutes.

The ordinance is meant to take the place of a provision no longer enforced by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) after it reached a settlement in a suit filed by two advocacy groups. As such, the ordinance is ripe for challenge on the same grounds as the original GAB rule was challenged.

Photo of the Madison skyline by Patrick43470 on Wikimedia Commons.

A new law in Arizona raising the limits of political contributions to candidates took effect today. Individuals and noncertified political committees will now be able to give $2,000 to candidates running for legislative and statewide offices who do not participate in the state’s Citizens Clean Elections Act campaign financing system. Contributions made to candidates running for local office may be made in amounts up to $2,500. Contribution limits by committees certified by the secretary of state have also been increased.

Additionally, the new law removes aggregate contribution limitations for individuals and some political committees.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new law, which was brought by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission and others from the state, is pending in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Several members of city council announced the introduction of legislation to reform independent expenditures made in the city. The legislation would close a “loophole” in state campaign finance law allowing limited liability companies to give at the individual aggregate contribution limit of $150,000 instead of the corporate aggregate limit of $5,000. Such a change would only apply to city elections.

The legislation would also require the disclosure of the top donors to independent expenditure communications.

Finally, the legislation would force any independent expenditure communication to inform voters the communication was not subject to the city’s campaign finance laws.

Photo of the New York City Hall by Momos on Wikipedia.

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 e-mail 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.

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 the State and Federal Communications digital encyclopedias for lobbying laws, political contributions, and procurement lobbying, and can be found in the client portion of the State and Federal Communications’ website.

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

Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed a bill Monday further extending the state’s contribution limits to other elected offices. Senate Bill 5748 now sets contribution limits on candidates running for a seat on a public hospital district board of commissioners in a district with a population over 150,000.

No person, other than a bona fide political party or a caucus political committee, will be allowed to contribute more than $900 per election for those candidates. Each primary, general, and special election are considered a separate election for purposes of the contribution limits, so a person would be allowed to contribute $900 during the primary and another $900 during the general election.

Senator Pam Roach was the bill’s main sponsor and she said, “This is a victory for citizens who reside in public hospital districts…Recent commission races have seen large contributions from single sources that have over powered the campaigns. All elected positions in state, county, and local government have campaign finance limitations except for public hospital commissioners. There is no reason that candidates for public hospital district board of commissioners should not live under the same rules as other elected officials. This bill corrects that problem.”

The bill will take effect on July 28, 2013.

Photo of Gov. Jay Inslee courtesy of Thomas Sørenes on Wikipedia.

National:

Lax State Rules Provide Cover for Sponsors of Attack Ads

Federal:

IG Report: ‘Inappropriate criteria’ stalled IRS approvals of conservative groups

SEC Pressed to Abandon Corporate Political Spending Disclosures Petition

From the States and Municipalities:

Alabama – GOP Considers Campaign Changes While Raising Money

Alabama – The Alabama Democratic Party: “We’re broke, broke, broke”

California – Cap on Political Party Contributions Moves Forward

Hawaii – Campaign Spending and Ethics Get Tech Upgrades

Missouri – Missouri Ethics Panel Fines Ex-Sen. Wright-Jones $270,000

New Jersey – Pay-to-Play Rollback Will Get One More Volley in Bergen, Pitting County Executive vs. Freeholders

New York – Ethics Panel Criticizes Assembly’s Response to Allegations against Lopez

Tennessee – Ethics Commission to Hold Hearing on Ingram Group ‘Oversight’

Tennessee – Lobbying Still Thriving Business in Nashville

Texas – House Sends Donor Disclosure Bill to Gov. Perry

Vermont – Campaign Finance Reform Failure Means Caps on Donations Unlikely to Occur until 2016 Campaign Cycle

State and Federal Communications produces a weekly summary of national news, offering more than 80 articles per week focused on ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance.

News You Can Use is a news service provided at no charge only to clients of our online Executive Source Guides, or ALERTS™ consulting clients.

A bill requiring lobbyists to disclose work as campaign consultants passed in the Texas Legislature on May 9.

House Bill 1422 requires individuals registering as lobbyists with the state to include the full name and address of each person who compensates or reimburses the registrant, or person acting as an agent for the registrant, for services, including political consulting services, rendered by the registrant from:

• A political contribution;
• Interest received from a political contribution; or
• An asset purchased with a political contribution.

The legislation has been sent to Governor Rick Perry. If not vetoed, the bill will become law with or without his signature.

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 the State and Federal Communications digital encyclopedias for lobbying laws, political contributions, and procurement lobbying, and can be found in the client portion of the State and Federal Communications’ website.

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

Elections Alberta and its Chief Electoral Officer Brian Fjeldheim have spoken on the Daryl Katz contribution scandal and they believe there was no scandal at all. Daryl Katz, chairman and CEO of The Katz Group and the National Hockey League’s Edmonton Oilers, has been under fire recently after a contribution of $430,000 was delivered to the Alberta Progressive Conservative party from his company last year.

Under Alberta laws, a corporation or individual is only allowed to contribute $30,000 to a political party during a campaign period. However, Fjeldheim ruled the contribution to be legal because the corporation simply collected contributions from individual donors and gave a bundled contribution of $430,000. Seventeen members of the company all contributed no more than the maximum $30,000 to the entire contribution and every person reimbursed the corporation.

In his ruling, Fjeldheim said, “There was no breach [of the contribution laws] because there was clear identification of the funds connected with the actual contributors and each contribution respected the $30,000 limit. Without more, a single payment of $430,000 would have exceeded the limit for a single contribution. However, the investigation revealed that this was not a single contribution of $430,000.”

There is concern within the province this ruling is a sign of things to come and Canadian elections could become similar to the money-happy American way.

However, Alberta Premier Alison Redford said she will not be looking to change the election laws. “What has been put in place is entirely appropriate.”

Not everyone agrees though. York University election financing expert Robert MacDermid said, “It would be simply a license to allow people to give money without disclosing the truth about it. When you have a system that doesn’t control disclosure adequately, when there are holes where people can give significant sums of money and not have to disclose their true identity…that absence of openness and disclosure really does make people question politicians.”

While the next Alberta election is not until 2016, this campaign finance issue is sure to be among the biggest at the time.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued a unanimous Advisory Opinion concluding same-sex couples married under state law are precluded from making joint federal political contributions from an individual bank account.

A same-sex couple married under Massachusetts law sought to make a political contribution to Dan Winslow, a candidate for the United States Senate.

The contribution check included instructions to attribute the contribution separately and equally between both individuals, even though the check was drawn from one of the individual’s bank account.

11 C.F.R. 110.1(i) provides spouses a legal exception to the prohibition on making a contribution in the name of another person. However, the term “spouse” is not defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 or the Commission’s regulations.

The Commission relied the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) interpretation of spouse referring “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife”.

In AO 2013-02, the FEC concluded DOMA prohibits applying the exception under 11 C.F.R. 110.1(i). The Commission distinguished a contribution made from a joint account, rather than an individual account, in a footnote to the opinion, noting, “Same-sex couples (whether married under state law or not) may as joint account holders make contributions in a manner similar to that afforded spouses under 11 C.F.R. 110.1(i).”

The Commission concluded its analysis and conclusions “may be affected by subsequent developments in the law including, but not limited to, statutes, regulations, advisory opinions, and case law”.