Latest Developments:
- The California Third District Court of Appeal invalidated a measure that purported to allow public financing of elections in California. In Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Newsom, the court found that Proposition 73, passed in 1988, prohibited public funding of political campaigns and that S.B. 1107, passed in 2016, sought to repeal that ban. S.B. 1107 would have allowed public funding of political campaigns if the state or a local government established a dedicated fund for that purpose, but the court found that it conflicted with the voter-approved measure.
- The Arizona Secretary of State released new lobbyist filing forms, which do not require notarization and may be filed by email. The Secretary notes that, while her website is being updated, users may experience a delay in filing quarterly expense reports.
- The Portland, Oregon Auditor published a draft of revised lobby regulations and asked for public comment on these regulations. The regulations provide that attempts to gain “goodwill” constitute “lobbying” and that grassroots lobbying is “lobbying,” and also clarify who is a “city official” with influence for purposes of the city’s lobby law. Comments are due by September 23.
Reminder:
The Practising Law Institute presents the annual Corporate Political Activities Conference on September 6-7, 2019 in Washington, D.C. The program comprehensively covers campaign finance, lobby disclosure and government ethics on the federal state and local level, with a break-out session on foreign political activities. A one-day version of the program will be presented later in San Francisco, CA on October 3. Nielsen Merksamer co-chairs these programs. To sign up, use the following links: PLI Two-Day Conference in Washington D.C.; PLI One-Day Program in San Francisco (also webcast)
In Case You Missed It:
- Hibernation at the FEC: The six-member Federal Election Commission will be down to three members at the end of August, according to Roll Call. The lack of a quorum means that the commission cannot meet and take any formal actions until at least one member is added. The staff of 300+ employees will continue to collect information and monitor activity.
- Disinformation Hearing: The Chair of the Federal Election Commission has summoned Facebook, Google, and Twitter to a meeting in an effort to “identify effective policy approaches and practical tools that can minimize the disruption and confusion sown by fraudulent news and propaganda in the 2020 campaign,” according to Politico, which quotes the invitation. The meeting is scheduled for September 17.
- ID Required for Facebook Politics: Facebook has announced that, beginning in mid-September, it will require that all political advertisers confirm their identities with a tax ID number or other government identification, according to the Associated Press. The verified group will be listed in a “paid for by” disclaimer. “Advertisers who don’t have tax ID numbers, government websites or registrations with the Federal Election Commission will still be able to post ads by providing an address, verifiable phone number, business email and website,” according to the article.
- Ethics Dilemma for Government Executive in the Hospitality Business: The Governor of California placed his hospitality business, Plumpjack Group, in a blind trust run by his sister and issued an Executive Order barring state agencies from doing business with his chain of hotels, restaurants, stores, and bars. But, as the Sacramento Bee reports, the Governor is facing the prospect of signing or vetoing bills that would affect the hospitality industry, in which his assets are heavily invested. His actions have drawn comparisons to another government executive in the hotel business.
Nielsen Merksamer Investigates: The California Supreme Court issued an announcement that it selected Art Scotland and Nielsen Merksamer to “spearhead an independent investigation into the partial disclosure related to the July (California State) Bar exam.” Scotland is a retired Justice of the State’s Third District Court of Appeal who joined Nielsen Merksamer in 2012. According to the statement, the court “will ensure that there is a thorough and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disclosure (of topics covered by the exam), and that appropriate steps are taken to protect the integrity of the bar examination and identify and address any consequences.” The American Bar Association Journal reports that many recipients of the email from the California State Bar thought the revelation of question topics five days before the exam was a hoax; the Bar said the first email leak was accidental, but disclosure to all test-takers was made “out of an abundance of caution and fairness.”