Published By:

Maryland has had a pay-to-play law for many years, which requires government contractors to register and file reports concerning political contributions to state and local candidates. Since 2015, the law has been in a state of flux as legislators and regulators have written and re-written the requirements, creating a complex reporting system.

The law is triggered when a business receives a contract from a Maryland state or local government body with a total value of $200,000 or more. The parent company of the business holding the contract must register with the State Board of Elections, and then keep the registration up to date with new contracts it and its subsidiaries receive. Every six months, the parent company must disclose certain contributions made by it and each of its subsidiaries, as well as contributions by each of those entities’ officers, directors, and partners. In addition, it must disclose contributions made by other individuals, such as employees and lobbyists, if they make contributions at the “direction or suggestion” of these officers, directors, or partners.

With the next report due Wednesday, November 30, covering the period from May 1 through October 31, it is a good time to review some of the most recent changes.

Extended Registration Deadlines

The State Board of Elections has extended the deadline for a filer to update its registration statement to include a new contract.

  • Contracts with the same jurisdictions: If any additional contracts are awarded from a jurisdiction with which a filer already has a registered contract, the filer has 30 business days to update the registration statement to include the new contract. 
  • Contracts with new jurisdictions: If a contract is awarded by a jurisdiction in which the filer does not hold a registered contract, the registration must be updated within 15 business days of the award to reflect the new contract. Additionally, the filer must submit an “initial report” within 15 business days of updating the registration, disclosing contributions made to (or “for the benefit of”) officials and candidates for office in that jurisdiction in the preceding 24 months.

Suggesting that Someone Make a Contribution

Under the new regulations, a communication to an employee, agent, or other affiliated person is considered a “suggestion” for a contribution if a reasonable person would understand it that way. The Board of Elections provides the following examples to help guide that determination:

  • If the filer, or an officer, director, or partner of the filer, forwards an email containing a fundraising solicitation to an employee or agent (e.g., a state lobbyist), a contribution that results from this “suggestion” must be reported by the filer.
  • An expression of public support – on social media, for example – is not, by itself, considered a “suggestion” for a contribution, and thus contributions made in response to such postings do not have to be reported.

Thus, officers and directors must be very careful about fundraising from employees, company lobbyists, and others. Simply forwarding an email containing a fundraising invitation can significantly expand the number of reportable contributions.

CEO’s Duty to Request Information from Covered Persons

In order to complete the report, the law requires a filer’s CEO, or his or her designee, to ask covered persons if they have made any covered contributions during each reporting period and obtain information about the date and amount of the contributions. Although the law does not impose a specific date by which the request for information must be sent, covered persons must provide information to the filer within 5 business days after a reporting period ends. For the upcoming report, the CEO or designee must request that covered persons provide the necessary information by November 7, 2016 (covering the period from May 1 – Oct 31).

If a filer requires that covered persons must preclear contributions through a corporate legal or compliance department, no separate notice is required. The preclearance policy must be in writing and annually reviewed by covered personnel.

A filer may also dispense with notice to officers, directors, partners, or employees of a subsidiary if (1) the subsidiary does not hold contracts in Maryland; (2) the subsidiary has “a written and well-publicized policy” prohibiting contributions in Maryland, which is annually reviewed by covered personnel; and (3) the filer annually submits the policy and related information to the Board of Elections. This written policy will be available to the public, but the Board of Elections has not yet determined whether it will be posted online.

If you need any assistance determining your obligations under these rules or filing reports, the Venable Political Law Practice can be of assistance. For more information on developments in federal and state campaign finance, lobbying, and ethics laws, please visit Venable’s Political Law blog at www.PoliticalLawBriefing.com.

United States and California flagsThe Fair Political Practices Commission – the agency responsible for administering and enforcing California’s campaign finance and lobbying laws – has unanimously approved a rule change intended to force more consultants to register as lobbyists and strengthen the agency’s hand in enforcing state lobbying laws. The rule will take effect September 16, 2016.

FPPC chair Jodi Remke has called this the “first step” in cracking down on “shadow lobbying,” and has indicated that the agency intends to focus on lobbying compliance in the coming year.

California lobbying law recognizes two types of lobbyists: in-house lobbyists, who lobby on behalf of their employer, and contract lobbyists, who lobby for a client. This change affects only contract lobbyists.

Continue Reading California Cracking Down on Lobbyist Registrations

From now until the polls close on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, politics will be inescapably in the air – and in the workplace. Employees will be talking, and sometimes arguing, and sometimes participating in one campaign or another. Prudent employers should take note of what they may be required to do or prohibited from doing about their employees’ desire to participate in the electoral process. Continue Reading Election Year Tips for Employers

Some candidates have a cozy relationship with super PACs that support them (as close as they can, given rules about coordination). Others are surprised and excited when a super PAC shows up to help out. But sometimes a super PAC raises money using a candidate’s name or picture, but doesn’t do much to help the candidate. In those cases, the candidate may be concerned the super PAC is taking donations that might otherwise go directly to the campaign or to super PACs that are actively supporting the candidate. 2013 Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli faced such a situation and decided to sue over it.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court, was not based on any campaign finance laws, but on the federal Lanham Act, which is a false advertising statute, and state law claims of false advertising, breach of contract, and unauthorized use of Mr. Cuccinelli’s name and picture. Mr. Cuccinelli sued not only the super PAC, but also all of the individuals associated with the super PAC. The case settled on interesting terms.

First, the Super PAC and its principals agreed to pay Mr. Cuccinelli $85,000. They also agreed to turn over their solicitation lists to Mr. Cuccinelli so he can use them either to raise money for future campaigns or to rent the lists to others. The Super PAC and the company that ran it will also undertake certain “best practices” in future campaigns. These include honoring a request from a candidate to stop using the candidate’s name or picture and maintaining contact information on their website. These terms make clear they apply to other PACs that are clients of the defendant’s company.  In this respect, Mr. Cuccinelli may have helped future candidates that find themselves in his spot.  Continue Reading Super PAC or Super Fraud: What to do when a super PAC raises money off a candidate’s name but doesn’t actually do anything to support the candidate

Earlier this month, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe signed into law a new bill making significant changes to Virginia’s lobbying and gift laws. The critical changes made by this bill, Senate Bill No. 1424, will become effective on January 1, 2016. Many of the revisions focus on gift reform, but the bill also contains important changes affecting lobbying as well as pay-to-play compliance.  Continue Reading Virginia Tightens the Reins: Major Lobbying and Gift Law Changes to Take Effect in 2016

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 disclose contributions made to independent expenditure groups and political parties that are “for the benefit” of covered candidates. The new law also changes reporting deadlines, and clarifies that companies holding state or local contracts awarded prior to January 1 must file disclosure reports until performance is complete.

The contribution disclosure requirements for lobbyist-employers will also change so that the two disclosure regimes mirror one another.

These new changes take effect on June 1, 2015, just five months after the last round of changes and the rollout of a new online reporting system.

Key features of the new law include…

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

The Maryland legislature overhauled the state’s campaign finance law almost two years ago, but many of the key provisions did not take effect until January 1, 2015. These changes significantly affect state government contractors by introducing a new electronic registration system overseen by the State Board of Elections, and requiring electronic reporting of contributions made by the contractor, as well as by its PAC and subsidiaries, and its officers, directors, and partners.

The new law also increases the limits on contributions by individuals and business entities, and compels politically active nonprofits to register and disclose their donors. Stiff penalties may be imposed on nonprofits that knowingly and willfully fail to file registration notices or reports. Also, the State Board of Elections now has the power to issue civil citations for strict liability offenses, such as failing to keep accurate books and records.

To read the full article, please continue reading on our website.

FlagsIn every election, campaigns and their political fundraisers must navigate a complex and ever-changing array of laws, which increasingly are being rewritten by the courts. The rules changed again last month, when the Supreme Court in McCutcheon v. FEC struck down the limit on the amount an individual may give during an election cycle to all federal candidate and PACs, and to the national political parties. While the ruling did not directly involve any state laws, the Court’s reasoning – that the First Amendment forbids restrictions on how many candidates or committees a donor may support – cast doubt on the constitutionality of laws in about a dozen states that also impose aggregate limits.

Yet with elections just weeks or months away, only a few of the states potentially affected by McCutcheon have indicated how they will interpret and apply it. Most have been silent, perhaps waiting for a lawsuit to force the issue, or a contributor who flouts the aggregate limit and dares the state to enforce it. Continue Reading Come and Get Us: Some States in No Hurry to Respond to Supreme Court Ruling on Aggregate Limits

Louisiana imposes an aggregate limit of $100,000 on a person’s contributions to a political committee in Louisiana during a four-year election cycle. An independent expenditure-only committee (i.e., a Super PAC) supporting gubernatorial candidate David Vitter sued, arguing that the cap is unconstitutional as applied to super PACs. A federal judge has now agreed.

“[I]ndependent expenditure committees are sacrosanct under the First Amendment.”

The Louisiana judge sided with the unanimous rulings of seven federal courts of appeals that have struck down limits on contributions to Super PACs. Based on these rulings, and the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United case, the judge observed that as a matter of law “independent expenditures present not even a marginal risk of corruption,” a principle that holds even if the Super PAC is formed to support a single candidate.

Continue Reading Another One Bites the Dust