Latest Developments:
- The United States Supreme Court has declined, without comment, to hear a challenge to Rhode Island’s campaign finance reporting requirements. The state “requires independent expenditure groups to disclose all donors giving at least $1,000 and for the advertisements themselves to list the group responsible and top five largest donors.” Conservative groups, whose challenges did not prevail in two previous federal courts, “argued that making donors identify themselves could subject them to criticism and harassment. They called for a judgment-free “safe space” for political contributions.”
- The Washington Public Disclosure Commission is considering raising the trigger for reporting late cycle campaign contributions from $1,000 to $1,500, citing “the economic changes reflected in the inflationary index.” The so-called “last-minute contributions” refer to donations made “six days before the primary and 21 days before the general election.” The adjustment would be effective for the 2022 election cycle under an expedited process which would skip most public review.
- Taco Campaign Drive: The California First Appellate District-Division Two ruled this week that East Palo Alto City Councilmember Antonio Lopez did not engage in illegal electioneering during his 2020 election bid by giving out free tacos near a San Mateo County ballot drop box, and polling place. Lopez had advertised free tacos to those who showed up at the polling place and the court found that, ultimately, “the provision of tacos did not reward any voter for voting or voting for any particular person. The tacos were given to the entire community, including people who obviously could not vote, including children.”
In Case You Missed It:
- Private Clubs No More in Minnesota Legislature: The Minnesota Post reports that a bill pending before the state legislature “would ban contributions to any club set up by a political committee of a candidate or a political caucus of the Legislature that provides access to lawmakers.” The ban was apparently requested by the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board, given that the current arrangement allows “charging membership dues to a club that provides access to Capitol decision-makers” to get around contribution session ban that already exists in law. Critics contend that the current arrangement provides “a way to accept money from, say, lobbyists, before session and a way to give those lobbyists special and private access to lawmakers during session.”
- Lobbyists Squeezed out of Committee Rooms: California Globe is reporting on dwindling seating capacity in public spaces previously available to lobbyists at the California Legislature. Both the state Senate and Assembly are “still requiring social distancing in committee hearing rooms, greatly diminishing available seating for lobbyists and members of the public,” with some not even permitting 14% capacity. These restrictions are especially problematic for lobbyists as some committees have “not allow[ed] public/lobbyist phone-in testimony… [which] has been the only way…many lobbyists have been able to testify at legislative committee hearings” since the beginning of the pandemic.