The Tennessee House of Representatives struck down a bill removing the prohibition on contributions from insurance companies and raising the contribution limits for party caucuses. House Bill 643 came up just two votes shy, collecting only 48 of the needed 50 votes to pass. The bill did however receive a majority of the votes, 48-41, so the bill is not technically dead.

Currently, Tennessee law prohibits insurance companies from making a contribution for political purposes. Under the bill, insurance companies would have had the ability to make contributions and would have had the same contribution limits as multicandidate political campaign committees.

The bill also would have allowed party caucuses to contribute $500,000 for statewide races, instead of the current limit of $374,300. It also would have doubled the amount the caucuses could contribute to senate and house candidates.

The bill was not defeated on a strict party line vote, as 13 Republicans voted against and another nine Republicans did not cast votes on the bill. It remains to be seen whether the House will bring the bill up for a second vote.

Photo of the Tennessee State Capitol House Chamber by Ichabod on Wikipedia.

A bill raising the limits of political contributions to candidates in Arizona has been signed into law.

On April 11, Governor Janice K. Brewer signed House Bill 2593, allowing increases in contribution amounts individuals and some political committees may make to candidates.

Individuals and noncertified political committees will be able to give $2,500 to candidates running for Arizona local, legislative, and statewide offices. Committees certified by the secretary of state to give at the upper limit can contribute up to $5,000 to a statewide candidate.

The bill removes the aggregate contribution limitations for individuals and some political committees. The law will take effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns sine die.

The United States Supreme Court has decided to hear a case challenging the aggregate federal limits for a person making contributions to candidates, party committees, and PACs. The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), is expected to be argued and decided during the Court’s next term, which begins in October, 2013.

The plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, is an Alabama businessman who regularly makes political contributions to Republican candidates and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Mr. McCutcheon wishes to contribute $26,200 more to candidates and committees than the aggregate ceiling would allow. However, he is not challenging the limits on contributions to individual candidates and entities. Mr. McCutcheon wants to give to more candidates and political entities. The RNC is also a plaintiff in the suit.

Federal law imposes two types of limits on individual political contributions, base limits and biennial limits.

Base limits restrict the amount an individual may contribute to:

• A candidate committee;
• A national party committee;
• A state, local, and district party committee; and
• A political action committee.

Biennial limits restrict the aggregate amount an individual may contribute biennially, using the 2011-2012 election cycle limits argued against in the lawsuit, as follows:

• $46,200 to candidate committees; and
• $70,800 to all other committees, of which no more than $46,200 may go to non-national party committees (e.g., state parties and PACs).

The plaintiffs are only challenging the overall limits (the biannual limits) and not the base limits.

The attorneys for McCutcheon and the RNC argue the two-year ceilings federal law sets on what an individual can contribute during a campaign are unconstitutional. Specifically, they assert the limits on contributions violate a contributor’s right to free speech; the limits for biennial contributions are too low; and the distinction between contributions and expenditures articulated in the 1976 US Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo are no longer applicable because of the changes in campaign finance laws over the last 30 years. Buckley v. Valeo allowed for government regulation of contributions to prevent political corruption and prohibited government regulation of expenditures because of First Amendment protections.

Unlike Citizens United v FEC, which concerned political expenditures, McCutcheon v. FEC addresses contribution limits. Additionally, this case does not involve the political contributions or expenditures of corporations.

Q. I am interested in making a political contribution in Puerto Rico. What are the current political contribution limits? Am I required to disclose my contribution?

A. In Puerto Rico, individuals and PACs may make contributions.  Direct corporate contributions are prohibited. Puerto Rico has recently raised the annual political contribution limits. In response to the Federal Election Commission raising the federal contributions limits in 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A),  the Oficina del Contralor Electoral (OCE) issued Circulated Letter OCE-CC-2013-02. The circulated letter raises the individual and PAC contribution limits to $2,600 per candidate per year, with an aggregate contribution limit of $13,000.  In an election year, the limits are modified to $2,600 per candidate per election, and $13,000 in the aggregate per election. These contribution limits do not apply to independent expenditures.

There are no reporting requirements for individuals making contributions in Puerto Rico.  PACs, however, have a quarterly disclosure requirement for any quarter in which contributions were received or expenditures were made.  PACs established and registered in a jurisdiction other than Puerto Rico have separate reporting requirements under the campaign finance regulations issued by the OCE.

For specific guidance on making contributions in Puerto Rico, please contact Sarah Kovit.

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.

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.

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.

The Arizona Office of the Secretary of State has released the 2013-2014 election cycle contribution limits.

Individuals and noncertified political committees can now contribute up to $912 to a statewide candidate, $450 to a non-statewide local candidate, and $440 to a non-statewide legislative candidate. Additionally, committees certified by the state may contribute up to $4,560 to a statewide candidate, $2,270 to a non-statewide local candidate, and $1,816 to a non-statewide legislative candidate. These limits apply to candidates not receiving public funds under the Citizens Clean Elections Act.

Other changes include allowing individuals to make annual political contributions up to $6,390 to political committees or candidates. The contributions limits are required by law to be adjusted every two years.

A bill was introduced that would prohibit lobbyists from making any political contributions to any member of the Rhode Island General Assembly during legislative sessions.

House Bill 5187, introduced by Representative John Lombardi on January 29, delineates the ban’s time-frame for each annual session from January 1 through July 1.

In his press release, Representative Lombardi states, “Perhaps buying a ticket to a legislator’s fundraiser is done with the best intentions, but it can still appear to be for a different reason entirely. Perceptions are important and there should never be the perception, even if incorrect, that a political contribution is a means to a special favor, to special treatment.”

Lobbying

“Matt Walker Heads to the National Restaurant Association” by Alex Roarty in National Journal.

Campaign Finance

“Coalition Presses for Rules on Corporate Political Spending” by Eliza Newlin Carney in Roll Call.

“Campaign finance fight lands at the SEC’s door” by Anna Palmer and Zachary Warmbrodt in Politico.

District of Columbia: “Campaign finance reform bills introduced at D.C. Council” by Alan Blinder in The Examiner.

Ethics

Georgia: “Senate committee meets on ethics rules” by Melissa Roberts on CBS Atlanta.

Kansas: “GOP conservatives’ ire at ethics commission likely to result in proposals to revamp watchdog” by John Hanna in The Republic.

South Carolina: “Sanford set for political comeback trail” by Cameron Joseph in The Hill.

Legislative Issues

“The Hill’s 2012 New Members Guide” in The Hill.

“Americans prefer Nickelback, root canals to Congress” by Breanna Edwards in Politico.

“Rhode Island Likely to Lose a House Seat” by Katherine Q. Seelye in The New York Times.

Michigan: “Michigan Legislature starts new session Wednesday” by David Eggert (Associated Press) in the Lansing Journal.

Vermont:  “As new legislative session starts, a look at the old Statehouse” by Terri Hallenbeck in the Burlington Free Press.

Wisconsin: “Wis. lawmakers reach no deal on changing rules” by Scott Bauer in the La Crosse Tribune.

Government Tech

“Who has the worst web presences in politics?” by Steve Friess in Politico.

Federal:

Ethics Restrictions for Federal Workers Apply to Inaugural Activities

From the States and Municipalities:

California

Sacramento Filmmaker Lobbies for Cash to Back ‘The Lobbyist’

Georgia

Ethics Reform: Lawmakers may have seen last free football game

Idaho

Campaign Finance Loopholes Have Some Wondering: Who’s watching the money?

Nebraska

NE: Lawmakers look to change rules for campaigns

Nevada

New Rule Requires Training Course for Lobbyists

New York

State Comptroller Sues Qualcomm for Data on Its Political Contributions

North Carolina

NC Judge Voids Teacher Paycheck Law Targeting NCAE

South Carolina

South Carolina AP Reporter Jim Davenport Dies

Tennessee

Proposed Bill Limits Make Tennessee Lobbyists Scramble

Virginia

Political Mail Exposing Voting Habits Ignites Uproar

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.

The government’s new bill reducing contributions to political parties became effective on Tuesday, January 1, 2013. National Assembly Bill 2 reduces the limit for private donations from $1,000 to $100, while increasing direct government funding to parties. The bill applies to provincial politics but not municipalities or school boards.

In an election year, voters will have the right to contribute an additional $100, for a maximum of $200. The bill further limits cash donations to $50, down from $100. Leadership candidates, unaffected by the bill, will still be able to collect donations of up to $1,000.

Campaign Finance

“2012 presidential election nearing all-time record, final campaign finance reports show” by The Associated Press in The Washington Post.

Arkansas: “3 GOP lawmakers fined by Ark. ethics commission” in the San Francisco Chronicle.

District of Columbia: “Reneging on campaign finance reform” column by Jonetta Rose Barras in the Examiner.

Texas: “Contributions Blackout Serves Many Functions” by Ross Ramsey in The New York Times.

“Bad News for Campaign Finance” editorial by David Firestone in The New York Times.

Lobbying

“Think Tanks or Partisan Advocates? Distinction Is Getting Harder to See” by Janie Lorber in Roll Call.

Florida: “Former lobbyist Allison Tant joins race to lead Florida Democratic Party” by Adam C. Smith in the Tampa Bay Times.

Texas:  “Ex-Arlington lawmaker forms lobbying firm” by Maria Recio, Anna M. Tinsley and Scott Nishimura in the Star-Telegram.

Wyoming: “Groups challenge Wyoming lawmakers’ lack of transparency with ALEC” by Joan Barron in the Star-Tribune.

Ethics

District of Columbia:  “DC lottery contract is subject of federal probe” by Ben Nuckols in Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

West Virginia: “W.Va. Ethics Commission director gets exemption” by The Associated Press in the Herald-Dispatch.

Redistricting

“Redrawn districts complicate inquiries to incoming representatives” by Brad Shannon in The Olympian.

“Redistricting fight puts Doggett in awkward situation” by Tim Eaton in the Austin American-Statesman.

Government Social Media

“North Carolina Archives Social Media” by Colin Wood in Government Technology.

The Ethics Commission will conduct two interested persons meetings following a report comparing the city’s campaign finance, enforcement, and lobbying laws with the laws of the city of Los Angeles.

Discussion topics include whether or not the city should increase pay-to-play restrictions, prohibit political contributions from lobbyists, and whether to adopt more stringent enforcement policies.

The meetings are scheduled for Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 408 of City Hall and for Monday, December 10, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 416 of City Hall.

Feedback may also be sent by email to ethics.commission@sfgov.org.

A federal court rejected an injunction trying to overturn Illinois’ political contribution law. Illinois Liberty PAC filed for the injunction contending the state law violated its First Amendment right to free speech. Illinois law limits the amount individuals, PACs, unions, and corporations may give to candidates each election. However, the law does not limit what political parties may contribute to a campaign.

Illinois Liberty PAC contended that if it was limited in what it could contribute, everybody should be limited. United State District Judge Gary Feinerman disagreed, holding that the injunction “would create a manifest possibility of actual or apparent corruption” and cause harm to the state’s citizens.

This ruling will not be the end of the case. Illinois Liberty PAC plans on filing an emergency motion with the appellate court in hopes of suspending the limits for the upcoming November election. Also, the courts will eventually have to rule on the constitutionality of Illinois’ contribution limits.