Latest Developments:
- The Center for Political Accountability released the 2021 CPA- Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability. Roll Call quotes the Center’s President as saying that “‘companies are moving in a turbulent political climate to better manage the risks of spending to sway elections.’” The article reports an increase in corporate board committee review of political contributions and expenditures, and voluntary disclosure by tax-exempt organizations that are not otherwise required to disclose detailed activity.
- The California Fair Political Practices Commission adopted new regulations to permit the use of electronic signatures on filings with the Commission, updating lobbyist recordkeeping, and regarding disclosure of expenditures for amplification of online communications.
Reminder:
COGEL, the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws, begins its annual conference on Monday, December 6 at 1:30 p.m. EST, in a virtual format. Interested persons may register here. The three-day conference is $400 for members ($1,000 for nonmembers) and includes live presentations via Zoom. The interactive conference offers an opportunity to hear from regulatory authorities throughout the country, including the Chair of the Federal Election Commission. Classes may qualify for CLE. “COGEL is a professional organization for government agencies and other organizations working in ethics, elections, freedom of information, lobbying, and campaign finance.”
In Case You Missed It:
- Missouri Money: The Missouri Independent reports that a Missouri lobbyist has drawn scrutiny from his setting up multiple PACs that his corporate clients support. “Corporations are banned from giving directly to candidates in Missouri. And contribution limits cap how much a candidate can take from an individual or PAC. Setting up multiple PACs opens the opportunity to skirt those regulations.” One watchdog opined that “‘This appears to be a way of cleverly exploiting a loophole in campaign finance law…’”
- Contribution Ban Debated: According to the Arizona Mirror, the Arizona Corporation Commission has rejected assertions by the Legislative Council that “a provision of the [commission’s] ethics policy limiting commissioners’ ability to vote on matters involving utilities that have provided funding for their campaigns, overstepped the commission’s legal authority by prohibiting its members from participating in their official duties.” The code was “enacted in response to high-profile and controversial campaign spending” by a utility in 2014 and 2016.
- North Dakota Rules Debated: The Bismarck Tribune reports on the North Dakota Ethics Commission’s efforts to adopt regulations concerning conflict of interest for quasi-judicial proceedings. Critics voiced objections to excluding campaign contributions from the definition of “significant financial interest,” thereby permitting members of the Industrial Commission and the Public Service Commission to accept contributions from those they regulate.
- New Jersey Ponders IE Disclosure: Insider New Jersey describes the concern of the Executive Director of the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission over the explosion of independent expenditures in New Jersey Elections. The article points out that the groups “are required to disclose only their expenditures, not the source of their money.” The commission’s “proposed reforms that would strengthen accountable political parties and bring parity between them and independent groups.”
- Pardon Lobbyist Failed to Register: The Daily Beast reports that a former Department of Justice Official “was directly involved in White House clemency negotiations possibly as late as Trump’s last full day in office, but never registered as a lobbyist while advocating for pardons…” The official was listed in a filing as an “advocate” and received “$400,000 last year in unspecified “consulting” fees.” The article quotes a Common Cause spokesperson who opines that “the laws surrounding lobbying for pardons specifically are fuzzy… [however,] a number of Trump lobbyists saw fit to disclose that work.”
- Candy does not Influence: The Wisconsin State Journal discloses that the Madison, Wisconsin Ethics Board ruled that when the assessor gave candy to members of the (property tax assessment) Board of Review prior to a hearing on reassessment of two multi-million dollar properties, she “did not violate ethics laws.” City and state ethics laws “prohibit providing “anything of value” to members of a public body if it could reasonably be expected to influence a vote or decision.”
- Et Tu, Brute?: The State (Columbia, SC) reports that the South Carolina Ethics Commission found that a candidate “spent thousands of campaign dollars on personal expenses… all while his campaign repeatedly failed to report details about who was contributing to his gubernatorial bid… [T]he S.C. Ethics Commission began investigating the Charleston businessman after one of [his] own campaign aides filed a complaint…”