New Jersey has overhauled its pay-to-play and campaign finance laws, dramatically changing the rules for government contractors, nonprofits, and individual donors. The passage of the Elections Transparency Act has been accompanied by considerable controversy, including litigation and the resignation of all four members of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC). In the meantime, some provisions have already taken effect. Others are slated to take effect after the June 2023 primary and apply to the 2023 general election and future elections.

Here are the most important things to know.

Pay-to-Play

Since 2006, New Jersey’s complex state pay-to-play law has barred contributions over $300 by companies and nonprofits bidding for, or under contract with, state agencies, including colleges and universities. The contribution ban applies not only to bidding and contracting entities, but also to their principal owners, officers and directors, and even their spouses.

Over the years, New Jersey’s pay-to-play law has ensnared dozens of government contractors, resulting in disqualified bids and voided contracts. Adding to the compliance burden, the prior state law permitted local governments to enact their own pay-to-play laws provided they were at least as stringent as the state law. Dozens of localities adopted such ordinances. This patchwork of pay-to-play laws has drawn criticism from government contractors as well as ELEC’s executive director who has called the state pay-to-play regime “convoluted and complicated,” and cited its “stunning inconsistency.”

Continue Reading New Jersey Overhauls Pay-to-Play and Other Campaign Finance Laws

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has announced new contribution limits for the 2023-2024 election cycle. The FEC indexes certain contribution limits for inflation every two years. In recent cycles, limits have increased by $100 each cycle, but following high rates of inflation over the past two years, the FEC substantially increased several contribution limits this cycle.

Individuals may now give each federal candidate $3,300 per election, up from the previous limit of $2,900. The primary and general elections are considered separate elections, so an individual may now give a total of $6,600 per candidate, per cycle. Per-election limits are in effect for the two-year cycle beginning the day after the general election and ending the day of the next general election (November 9, 2022 to November 5, 2024).

Continue Reading Federal Election Commission Announces Significant Increases to Contribution Limits Adjusted for Inflation for 2023-2024 Cycle

The Federal Election Commission last week approved a final rule establishing requirements for sponsorship disclaimers on political ads. The Commission’s internet disclaimer rule has been unchanged since 2006, at times leaving advertisers and platforms for political ads uncertain about how the rule applies to evolving technologies. The FEC’s review is ongoing, and the public is invited to comment on whether additional rules are necessary to regulate social media influencers, boosted ads, and other forms of digital advertising.

What’s New?

Technological Modernization. The rule approved this week incorporates proposed changes we first wrote about in 2018. To start with, the new rule makes clear that the current disclaimer requirements for ads placed for a fee on websites also apply to paid advertising through other digital platforms, such as social media, mobile apps, and streaming sites. This modernizes the rule to accommodate emerging technologies and is consistent with what has become common practice on major social media platforms and online advertising networks.

Continue Reading FEC Adopts New Disclosure Rule for Digital Political Ads

California recently expanded its pay-to-play law to prohibit a company seeking a license, permit, or non-competitively bid contract, along with certain of the company’s affiliates, agents, and employees, from contributing more than $250 to a local elected official of the agency in question. This will include city councils and county boards of supervisors, and their committees. The new law extends the contribution ban from three to 12 months after a final award is made and requires broader disclosure from a company and its agents. The new law goes into effect January 1, 2023.

What is the current state of the law?

Under current law, a party or participant in an agency proceeding involving a license, permit, or non-competitively bid contract is prohibited from contributing more than $250 to an officer of that agency during the proceeding and for three months after a final decision is rendered. Additionally, an officer of that agency is prohibited from participating in a decision if he or she received a contribution exceeding $250 from a party or participant in the proceeding. However, because an “agency” is defined to exclude the legislature, state constitutional officers, city councils, and county boards of supervisors, the law has a narrow effect and tends to apply only when an elected official is appointed to serve on a local board or planning commission. The law also requires parties to disclose contributions made in the preceding 12 months to an officer of that agency.

How has the law changed?

There are three important changes.

First, the law repeals the exemption for local agencies whose members are directly elected by the voters. This change alone captures a broad swath of local proceedings before city councils and county boards, ranging from zoning variances and development permits to cable television franchises and professional license revocations.

Second, contributions will be prohibited for a longer period after a decision is rendered. Parties and participants to an agency proceeding will be prohibited from contributing more than $250 to an officer of that agency—and agency officers will be prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing such contributions—during the proceeding and for 12 months after a decision is rendered.

Third, the new law requires parties involved in a covered proceeding to disclose contributions of more than $250 made in the preceding 12 months in all federal, state, and local elections held in California —not just contributions made to agency officers.

Who does the law apply to?

Unchanged from existing law, the pay-to-play law applies to proceedings for a “license, permit, or other entitlement for use,” which means all business, professional trade, and land use licenses, permits, and other entitlements for use, including entitlements for land use, franchises, and certain contracts. Competitively bid, labor, and personal employment contracts are not covered.

A covered “party” includes the entity that files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or non-competitively bid contract. A covered “participant” is a person who actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding and who has a financial interest in the decision. When a privately held corporation is a party or participant in a proceeding, the majority shareholder of the corporation is also subject to the above prohibition and disclosure requirements.

In addition, a party’s or principal’s contributions are aggregated with those made by their “agents,” meaning individuals or firms that represent a party or participant in a proceeding. If an individual agent is an employee or member of a law, architectural, engineering, or consulting firm, both the entity and the individual are considered agents.

What are the implications for a company’s compliance program?

Violators are subject to fines and reputational harm. Accordingly, companies that seek to do or currently do business in California should track contributions made by the company and those made by covered individuals. Compliance protocols should be modified to account for changes in the new law. Covered employees and agents should be informed of the potential implications of making a prohibited personal contribution.

In addition to this state law covering local elected officials, many California cities and counties have adopted their own pay-to-play laws that may impose additional contribution restrictions and disclosure requirements. For example, earlier this year Los Angeles moved to ban contributions by developers and property owners. Pay-to-play laws are often a trap for the unwary, with serious consequences ranging from fines to disqualified bids, voided contracts, and reputational damage.

If you need help in determining your obligations under pay-to-play laws or developing a compliance program, please contact Venable’s Political Law Practice.

As we previously blogged, the District of Columbia’s pay-to-play law will go into effect on November 9, 2022. The law prohibits businesses doing or seeking to do business with the DC government from making certain political contributions if the contracts involved are worth an aggregate value of $250,000 or more. The contribution ban also applies to the company’s senior officers. Violations may result in termination of a contract or disqualification from seeking future contracts (including extensions of existing contracts) for up to four years.

The law applies to contracts sought, entered into, or executed after November 9, 2022.

The District of Columbia joins twenty-eight states and numerous municipalities with laws restricting contributions from government contractors and their principals and imposing special reporting requirements.

Please contact Venable’s Political Law Group if you have questions about establishing a pay-to-play compliance program. For more information on developments in federal and state campaign finance, lobbying, and ethics laws, please visit Venable’s political law blog at PoliticalLawBriefing.com.

A new law took effect in the city of Los Angeles on June 8 that prohibits developers, property owners, and their respective principals from making local political contributions while certain planning applications are pending with the City and for 12 months thereafter.

Who does the law apply to?

Any applicant or property owner associated with a “significant planning entitlement” filing in the city of Los Angeles qualifies as a “restricted developer” and is subject to the new restriction. “Significant planning entitlement” is defined broadly, capturing many discretionary applications filed with the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, including zoning issues and general plan amendments.

Continue Reading Los Angeles Bans Political Contributions by Developers and Property Owners

New York recently adopted regulations impacting charitable organizations that are registered and required to file annual financial reports (the CHAR 500) with the New York Attorney General’s Charities Bureau.[1] These regulations, which became effective March 16, 2022, clarify that the names and street addresses of donors to public charities are no longer required to be disclosed to the Charities Bureau with the CHAR 500.

The regulations were proposed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which found California’s donor disclosure law requiring charities to submit an unredacted copy of IRS Form 990 Schedule B to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Following the Court’s decision, California, New York, and New Jersey suspended collection of Schedule B donor information, which is typically filed on a confidential basis with the IRS as part of the otherwise public Form 990. Six months later, the New York Attorney General’s Office proposed regulations to eliminate the requirement that charitable organizations provide the state with the names and addresses of donors on Schedule B. The final regulations remain unchanged from those proposed by the AG’s Office.[2]

Continue Reading New York Adopts Regulations Amending Its Donor Disclosure Rules

U.S. companies are allowed to make contributions to super PACs, which is exactly what Wheatland Tube, LLC did in this case. However, the decision to contribute involved conversations with a foreign national, and that led to a $975,000 fine to settle charges that the contribution by a U.S. company violated the ban on contributions made by foreign nationals. The fine is the third-largest in the agency’s history and provides an important lesson about the limits of foreign national involvement in decisions by U.S. companies to be involved in the political process.

The complaint concerned contributions totaling $1.75 million to a federal super PAC by U.S. company Wheatland Tube, LLC. Wheatland Tube is wholly owned by a U.S. corporation, Zekelman Industries, Inc. Canadian citizen, Barry Zekelman, is the CEO (as well as an owner) of Zekelman Industries.

Mr. Zekelman acknowledged that he discussed the contributions with Wheatland Tube’s president, a U.S. citizen who also served as general counsel of Zekelman Industries. But Wheatland’s president said that he exercised independent judgment in making the decision to contribute. The FEC rejected this defense, concluding that even if a U.S. citizen has “final decision-making authority or final say” over the making of a contribution, a foreign national – an individual who is not a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted for permanent residence – may not participate, directly or indirectly, in a decision-making process regarding U.S. election-related spending. The FEC made clear that none of the funds involved appeared to have come from non-U.S. sources; the only violation was Mr. Zekelman’s involvement in the decision to contribute. To that end, the settlement also involved Zekelman Industries, because, even though it is a U.S. company, its executives were involved in the decision to contribute, and they were acting at Mr. Zekelman’s direction.

Continue Reading FEC Imposes Record Fine for Foreign Individual’s Role in U.S. Company’s Otherwise Lawful Contribution to a Super PAC

Pay-to-play laws present a minefield for compliance because they can be found not only at the state level, but also the local level. As one of the most recent examples, beginning on April 1, 2022, Delaware County Pennsylvania, just outside of Philadelphia, will require disclosure of certain political contributions by county contractors and subcontractors anticipating receiving $50,000 or more under a covered contract required to be approved by the county council. Contributions made by the contractor’s and subcontractor’s corporate affiliates, officers, directors, partners, and their spouses are also subject to disclosure. Violations may result in the loss of contracts and a contract ban.

What contributions must be disclosed

Contributions of any amount made in the 24 months prior to the date the county council will consider the contract:

Continue Reading Remember Local Pay-to-Play Laws: Delaware County, Pennsylvania Imposes New Disclosure Requirements

A flurry of recent advisory opinions from the Department of Justice’s FARA unit raise new questions about how the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) might apply to the nonprofit community. Adding to the uncertainty, these opinions arrive just as momentum is increasing for DOJ to adopt new regulations to clarify and update the pre-World War II law that has seen aggressive enforcement in the last decade.

FARA generally requires agents of foreign principals engaged in certain activities within the United States to influence domestic and foreign policy to register and publicly disclose the relationship and their activities to DOJ. In the last few years, enforcement has ramped up, with multiple indictments in the wake of investigations into foreign interference in the 2016 elections. As a result, organizations with international connections have called for greater guidance on the reach of what is a notoriously vague law. To this end, DOJ began releasing heavily redacted advisory opinions interpreting FARA and its regulations.

A common theme among opinions released in February 2022 is the scope of the so-called academic exemption, one of several exemptions to the law’s registration and reporting requirements. Under this exemption, an agent working on behalf of any kind of foreign principal need not register under FARA if the activity performed on behalf of the principal promotes bona fide religious, scholastic, academic, or scientific pursuits or the fine arts. Nonprofits, including universities and other educational organizations, religious groups, and other charitable organizations, have long relied on this exemption when engaging in activities that may cause them to be considered an “agent” of a foreign entity.

Continue Reading New FARA Advisory Opinions Put Nonprofits on Notice