Latest Developments:
- The Governor of New Jersey conditionally vetoed an anti-corruption bill earlier this week, contending that it might “allow those who offer, solicit or accept bribes for corrupt acts to find loopholes to evade criminal liability, which would then result in future legal arguments and judicial decisions.” As New Jersey media reports, the governor’s concern stems from a recent appellate decision regarding a failed mayoral candidate who was offered money by an attorney who wanted to be hired by the city. “A Superior Court judge ruled last year that because O’Donnell was not an elected official at the time, he had no power to make promises in return for the money. The appellate court decision in April said the ruling should be overturned and that judges from both the state trial court and the federal court were wrong because bribery is a ‘reciprocal crime’”. The bill now returns to the legislature with the governor’s suggested revisions to address loopholes which might not cover transgressions of these sorts.
- The United States Department of Justice announced the arrest of two Puerto Rico mayors in a pay-to-pay scandal in which the mayors accepted cash payments from vendors in exchange for municipal contracts. According to WRIC, the arrests are part of a larger FBI initiative to uncover political corruption in Puerto Rico. Both mayors stand accused of “involvement in a bribery conspiracy…in which [they]received and accepted cash payments from two businessmen in exchange for awarding municipal contracts for waste disposal services, asphalt and paving services and debris removal, as well as payment of outstanding invoices on the contracts.” One mayor received at least $32,000 and the other at least $15,000.
- The Alaska Public Office Commission has given notice of proposed regulations “dealing with contributions, independent expenditures, political communications, reporting requirements, and penalty mitigation.” Responding to the 2020 campaign overhaul initiative approved by voters, the statutory revisions augment post-election campaign contribution reporting requirements, further define “prohibited contributions”, refine reporting requirements for non-profit committees, and seek to institute 24 hours reporting, among other changes. The public comment period ends June 8th and the full text of the regulations can be found here.
In Case You Missed It:
- Cloning PACs in the Natural State: The Arkansas Times reports on the proliferation of what they term “cloned PACs”, political action committees “funded by the same person or persons to multiply influence in political races.” While in Arkansas “a corporation or individual can put up to $5,000 in PAC,” by establishing distinct entities, the same contributors could donate to each organization which each have their own separate contribution limits. While the Times points out that multiple PACs were involved in recent state campaign finance scandals, the article acknowledges the legality of the practice.
- Portland Contribution Limit Workaround: Oregon Public Broadcasting provides an analysis of this, the second election cycle in which the City of Portland’s public financing program has been in effect. In this year’s city council races, as in the 2020 cycle, individuals affiliated with the business and labor political action committee Portland United have given heavily to that PAC in addition to donating the maximum of $250 to their preferred candidate who is also receiving public funds. Critics contend that this phenomenon frustrates the program’s goal of “reduc[ing] the influence of big money in politics.” Instead of raising the caps to counteract PAC’s spending, the Portland Commissioner challenged by the PAC-supported candidate indicated that she will approach the City Attorney to require that future candidates disavow the committees making expenditures on their behalf or be suspended from the matching funds program.