The Ethics Review Commission has given its support to Council Member Leslie Pool’s proposed lobbying law changes. These changes include broadening the definition of lobbyist, increasing disclosure requirements, and removing a loophole allowing part-time lobbyists to avoid registering.

Pool’s proposal has been met with opposition from those involved in the design and building industries. They claim the ordinance is too broad and would require architects, engineers, and others involved in the building industries to register as lobbyists. Also, many of these professionals currently serve on city boards and commissions. If they are required to register, they will have to resign from those seats because city law prohibits registered lobbyists from serving on city boards and commissions. The group representing the developers feels such a move would result in the city being robbed of valuable expertise.

This opposition has resulted in Pool making some changes to the ordinance, but the group representing developers is still not satisfied.

So far, registered lobbyists have not opposed the new changes even though the proposal would increase their reporting requirements. If passed, the ordinance would require lobbyists to provide greater detail about who they are representing, how much money is being spent on a lobbying efforts, and how much they receive in payments from clients.

The ordinance will now be presented to the Audit and Finance Committee. From there is will proceed through City Council, with a possible final vote coming early next year.

Photo of the Austin, Texas skyline by Erik A. Ellison on Wikimedia Commons.

On September 23, Austin, Texas City Council Member Leslie Pool intends to present a new lobbying ordinance to the Audit and Finance Committee.

On Monday, the Ethics Review Commission was asked by Pool to set up a public hearing before the September 23 date. “Council members can start raising money in May [2016], so that’s why we’re trying to keep this moving forward,” Pool said, according to the Austin Monitor.

Commission Chair Austin Kaplan told the Austin Monitor the ordinance would subsequently be addressed by the full Ethics Review Commission at its September 28 meeting. Proposed changes to the city’s lobbying law include increasing the registration fee from $300 to $350 a year for those earning at least $2,000 per quarter and eliminating the exception to register when an individual claims communications are incidental to other employment not for the purpose of lobbying.

Photo of Austin, Texas skyline by Erik A. Ellison on Wikimedia Commons.

On July 27, city of Austin, Texas Councilman Don Zimmerman filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction against city campaign finance provisions relating to blackout periods. The current law only allows officeholders, candidates, and their respective committees to accept campaign contributions during the last 180 days before an election or recall election. Zimmerman asserts the blackout period banning contributions in the city violates his First Amendment rights of free speech. On February 2, 2015, in Gordon v. City of Houston, a federal district court declared a similar ordinance in the city of Houston as facially unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the city from enforcing the ordinance.

Zimmerman v. City of Austin, Texas, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, also claims the law’s imposition of aggregate limits of the total contributions a candidate can accept from sources other than natural persons eligible to vote in a postal zip code completely or partially within the Austin city limits is unconstitutional, creates a burden on campaigns, and does not relate to any threat of corruption. The lawsuit also challenges a 90 day requirement for campaign account terminations. “Political speech is the very core of the First Amendment, but Austin’s campaign finance system seeks to control debate by controlling fundraising and spending,” stated Zimmerman’s attorney, Jerad Najvar, in a press release.

Photo of the Austin, Texas skyline by Erik A. Ellison on Wikimedia Commons.

Today the Legislature adjourned sine die. Gov. Greg Abbott has 20 days after transmittal of bills sent at the end of the session to sign or veto the legislation. If the governor does not act on a bill, it becomes law.

On March 4, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced a special election will be held on March 31 for Texas House District 124.

The winner will serve the remainder of the term for the seat left vacant by Jose Antonio Menendez. Menendez won a special election to the state senate earlier this year.

On February 17, in his state of the state address, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott emphasized his desire for ethics reform legislation. Included in his proposals are requirements for more detailed disclosure concerning campaign finance, disclosure of elected officials’ contracts with public entities, and a prohibition of lawmakers voting on “legislation from which they could profit.”

Abbott challenged the legislature by stating, “The most important commodity we have as elected officials is the bond we share with our constituents. Transparency – and rising above even the appearance of impropriety – will strengthen that bond. Rejection of ethics reform will weaken that bond and rightfully raise suspicions about who we truly serve – ourselves, or the people of Texas.”

The governor’s entire address can be seen here:

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.”

On August 21, the Texas Ethics Commission issued two advisory opinions and a proposed rule amendment.

Advisory Opinion 519 holds a state candidate is not prohibited from accepting an in-kind political contribution from an out-of-state political committee. The contribution to a candidate is allowed if made from a permissible source and the candidate properly complies with the applicable disclosure requirements.

In Advisory Opinion 518, the commission upheld that a group is not a political committee if not accepting or intending to accept political contributions and not using or intending to use more than 20 percent of its funds and other resources to make political expenditures.

The Ethics Commission also voted to propose a rule change by defining “principal purpose” in relation to a group making political contributions and expenditures. While a group can have more than one principal purpose, the definition would create a threshold triggering the disclosure of political contributions and expenditures. The commission also proposed other rule changes. The proposed rules are currently open for comment.

Photo of the Texas Capitol Rotunda dome interior by Ed Uthman on Wikimedia Commons.

Today Texas Gov. Perry announced a special election will be held September 9, 2014, for the State Senate District 28 seat.

State Sen. Robert Duncan resigned on July 3, 2014, in order to serve as chancellor of the Texas Tech University System. The winner of the election will serve out the unexpired term of Duncan, which expires in 2017.

Duncan has served in both the state House and the Senate since 1993.

A new Texas Ethics Commission Rule regarding contributions to direct campaign expenditure-only committees became effective today.

Texas Ethics Commission Rule §22.5 requires a political committee intending to act exclusively as a direct campaign expenditure-only committee to file an affidavit with the Texas Ethics Commission stating the committee intends to act exclusively as a direct campaign expenditure-only committee and will not use its contributions made to it to make political contributions to any candidate for elective office, any officeholder, or any political committee making a political contribution to a candidate or officeholder.

The new rule requires the committee file the statement before it can accept a political contribution from corporations or labor organizations.

Steve Raborn, the Tarrant County, Texas Elections Administrator since 2006, will be leaving office on March 14. Raborn will next be working for Votec Corporation, a private company dealing with public election-related products and services. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Tarrant County Elections Commission intends to hire Raborn’s replacement before he leaves office.

On February 13, the Texas Ethics Commission issued an advisory opinion concerning the requirements of lobbyists to disclose office holders or candidates compensating or reimbursing the lobbyist for services from political contributions.

In Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 515, the commission held that while a lobbyist must disclose in a registration the full name and address of a candidate or officeholder who uses political contributions to compensate or reimburse the lobbyist, he or she is not required to disclose compensation or reimbursement received by an entity for services rendered by someone other than the lobbyist or a person acting as an agent of the lobbyist.

Lobbyists must disclose the full name and address of a candidate or officeholder who uses political contributions to compensate or reimburse an entity that employs or hires the lobbyist to render services for the candidate or officeholder.

On January 19, 2014, the city’s Wage Theft Ordinance takes effect. The ordinance prohibits contracts with the city for vendors convicted of wage theft, assessed an administrative penalty involving wage theft, or adjudicated in a civil action of engaging in wage theft. The prohibition applies to entering, continuing, or extending contracts with the city. City contractors are prohibited from retaliating against any person filing a wage theft complaint in good faith.

Photo of the Houston skyline courtesy of Hequals2henry on Wikimedia Commons.

The Texas Ethics Commission issued a resolution “unanimously condemn[ing] the use of misleading campaign communications regarding the activities of the [Ethics] Commission.”

In its resolution, issued on December 3, 2013 and released online this week, the commission states the use of statements like “‘a sworn complaint has been filed against Candidate A’ or ‘the Texas Ethics Commission is investigating a complaint against Candidate A’ are improper attempts to mislead the public.”

The commission asserts “anyone can file a complaint” with or without merit and the commission must investigate every sworn complaint, “whether it has merit or not.” Because of that, the bipartisan commission finds the use of such campaign advertising “an unfair practice” and argues the use of statements concerning the mere filing of a complaint or a legally required investigation of a complaint doesn’t provide “meaningful information” to voters.

Photo of the Texas State Capitol dome interior by Edward Uthman in Wikimedia Commons.