Last week the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld key provisions of Hawaii’s campaign finance laws requiring a for-profit company making campaign contributions and expenditures to register as a political committee, and prohibiting government contractors from contributing to state legislators and candidates.

Broad Implications for Companies and Nonprofits Participating in Hawaii Elections

Hawaii requires

Following a major rewrite last year of its “pay-to-play” disclosure rules, Maryland has made further changes that expand the obligations of state and local government contractors to report their political contributions, and those of their subsidiaries, officers, directors, partners, and PACs. Now, in addition to reporting direct contributions to candidates, contractors will also have to

moneyhandsOver the last few years, the courts have loosened campaign finance laws and the agency charged with enforcing them is frequently gridlocked. However, one campaign finance violation that can still get you in big trouble is reimbursing contributions, particularly when the reimbursing is done by a corporation.

In settling a recent enforcement matter involving the Fiesta Bowl, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) obtained fines of nearly $100,000 from the corporation and the CEO and restitution by the CEO of over $60,000. A parallel criminal case resulted in guilty pleas that landed the former CEO in jail for eight months, community service for one executive, and two years of probation for another (who would have also faced a $15,000 penalty from the FEC, but she was able to demonstrate an inability to pay).

The case is not really new – the settlements occurred in 2012 and 2013 – and the FEC has yet to release the documents on its website, but the organization that filed the complaint with the FEC made them available to the public. The documents show a scheme that the FEC says included:


Continue Reading The Big No: Reimbursing Contributions

Ramping Up for the 2016 Cycle Make Compliance a Priority for LobbyingThursday, March 26, 2015
1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. ET – Webinar

The Justice Department recently announced its first criminal prosecution for coordination. States like Virginia are revamping their ethics laws and California recently imposed new restrictions on lobbyists. Although the IRS has yet to issue regulations for 501(c)(4)s, many states have created new disclosure requirements for politically active nonprofit groups. Maryland has imposed tough new disclosure requirements on state contractors that make campaign contributions. 
Continue Reading Please Join Us: WEBINAR – Ramping up for the 2016 Cycle: Make Compliance a Priority for Lobbying and Political Activity

b2tfIn January 2010 –  as almost everyone already knows by now – the Supreme Court struck down major portions of campaign finance laws, allowing corporations to make independent expenditures in support of, or opposition to, candidates for federal office. Super PACs that could accept unlimited individual and corporate contributions soon followed based on lower court

California’s ethics watchdog, the Fair Political Practices Commission, adopted a new rule that prohibits lobbyists from hosting fundraisers in their homes. This rule implements legislation passed after a lobbyist was fined for hosting what the LA Times called “lavish fundraisers” featuring “wine, liquor, and cigars,” in his home. Lobbyists in California are prohibited from making campaign contributions, but the statute previously exempted from the definition of a “contribution” the use of one’s home for a campaign event, along with$500 for food and drink. The legislation eliminated this exemption, providing that any “payment made by a lobbyist or a cohabitant of a lobbyist for costs related to a fundraising event held at the home of the lobbyist, including the value of the use of the home as a fundraising event venue,” is now a contribution.


Continue Reading Not Homeward Bound: California Lobbyists Barred from Hosting Fundraisers in their Homes

SpiderWebAs we have discussed, Maryland amended its pay-to-play rules to impose new reporting requirements on entities that do business with state or local governments. The first report under the new system is due on February 5, and if the roundtable hosted yesterday by the State Board of Elections is any indication, confusion abounds regarding the law’s core requirements.

This post highlights a few of the issues discussed at that roundtable.  
Continue Reading Oh What a Tangled Web Maryland Weaves: Updates on the Pay-to-Play Disclosure Process Before February 5 Report is Due

As it has done every two years since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act indexed contribution limits for inflation, the FEC has announced revised contribution limits for the 2016 election cycle. In addition to the traditional limits for candidates, PACs, and parties, the FEC also set the indexed limit for the new special accounts created at the end of 2014 for the national political parties. This first chart shows the limits for individual and PAC contributions to candidates, PACs, and state and local party committees:

BlogImage1

This next chart shows the amounts that an individual may give to the national party committees. The general fund is the account that has always existed, while the other funds are the new accounts Congress created in 2014 to help the parties to defray certain costs:
Continue Reading More to Give: FEC Raises Contribution Limits

CoffeeCupWhen Arkansas legislators gave voters a chance to approve a constitutional amendment banning corporate contributions and gifts from lobbyists, even the referendum’s sponsor thought it was doomed.  Why?  Because coupled with these reforms was a provision extending legislators’ term limits, a measure so unpopular that voters had previously rejected it by a 40-point margin.  Indeed, a committee opposing the referendum brought a 10-foot wooden horse to campaign events to help convince voters that the only real intention of the referendum was to get rid of term limits.

Whatever the motivations – which at times were hard to discern as the Republican legislature that placed the referendum on the ballot later passed a resolution to oppose it – the referendum passed last week with 53% of the vote.  It makes a number of important changes in Arkansas law, including: 
Continue Reading Welcoming the Trojan Horse: Arkansas Voters Approve Term Limits, While Banning Corporate Contributions and Lobbyist Gifts

The LD-203 obviously includes a number of different disclosures. In practice, many reports show very little activity because the categories to be disclosed are fairly narrow. However, the report is filed under penalties of making false statements, so organizations have to know that they did not make any covered payments.

The Whole Company

ChartAs our previous posts have explained, many of the contributions that must be disclosed are not necessarily in the purview of the government affairs department. For example, a corporate philanthropy department might make a contribution to a charity that focuses on hunger relief. But, if a Member of Congress established that charity, it has to be disclosed on the LD-203. Similarly, an executive might ask the company to contribute to a charity active in a community where the company is located. But, again, if the executive were responding to a request from the Congressman’s district director, and that DD serves on the board of the charity, it is a contribution “designated” by a covered official.
Continue Reading LD-203 Compliance Tips