Tag: campaign contributions

New Massachusetts Campaign Finance, Ethics and Lobbying Law

Massachusetts-State-House

After the well-publicized scandals with Salvatore DiMasi and Dianne Wilkerson, the lawmakers on Beacon Hill passed ethics legislation yesterday banning politicians from accepting gifts and upping the consequences for ethical violations.

The Governor had threatened to veto a sales tax increase unless this act was passed, along with reforms in the pension system and the the transportation network.

Here are some of the highlights of the new ethics law:

Gift Ban

  • Prohibits public officials from accepting gifts of “substantial value” for or because of their position.
  • Bans lobbyists from giving gifts.

Tougher Penalties

  • Increases the maximum punishment for bribery to $100,000 and 10 years imprisonment.
  • Increases the maximum penalties for conflict of interest law violations involving gifts and gratuities, revolving door violations and other abuses to $10,000 and 5 years imprisonment.
  • Increases penalties for a civil violation of the conflict of interest laws from up to $2,000 per violation to up to $10,000 per violation. For bribery, the civil penalty would increase to $25,000.
  • Increases the civil penalty for a violation of the financial disclosure law from $2,000 per violation to $10,000 per violation.
  • Increases the criminal penalty for violating registration-related lobbying rules to up to $10,000 and 5 years imprisonment.

Stronger Lobbying Laws

  • Defines lobbying to include background work, strategizing, research and planning.
  • Expands the revolving door provision to apply to members of the executive branch.
  • Reduces the amount of allowable incidental lobbying from 50 hours in each 6-month reporting period to 25 hours in each 6-month reporting period.

Expanded Enforcement Authority

  • Makes compliance with the Ethics Commission’s summons mandatory.
  • Grants the Secretary of State authority to impose fines and to have the same civil enforcement authority over lobbying violations as the Ethics Commission has over ethics violations.
  • Gives the Attorney General concurrent jurisdiction with the Ethics Commission to enforce civil violations of the conflict of interest laws.

Enhanced Campaign Finance Laws

  • Eliminates arrangements between state political parties and elected officials.
  • Bars individuals from making committee checks to themselves.
  • Requires disclosure of expenditures and sources of funding for any anonymous third-party campaign mailings or ads that support or criticize a candidate or campaign.
  • Increases penalties for late-filed campaign finance reports.

Open Meetings

  • Expands and better defines the requirements of the open meeting law

References:

California’s Pay-to-Play Laws

California requires disclosure of gifts to officials at public agencies. The disclosure is made using Form 801 (.pdf).

This form is for use by all state and local government agencies to disclose payments made to the agency when the payments provide a personal benefit to an official of the agency. Examples may include travel, meals or other benefits. Under certain circumstances, these payments will not result in a gift to the official, but will be considered a gift to the agency. The payments must be used for official agency business and must meet other requirements that are set out in FPPC Regulation 18944.2 (.pdf), which is available on the FPPC website www.fppc.ca.gov. This form must be filed within 30 days of the use of the payment.

California treats the giving of tickets to officials at state and local agencies slightly differently. FPPC Regulation 18944.1 (.pdf) regulates this practice, with disclosure made on Form 802 (.pdf)

There is a whole series form for reporting lobbying activity:

  • Form 601 — Lobbying Firm Registration Statement
  • Form 602 — Lobbying Firm Activity Authorization
  • Form 603 — Lobbyist Employer/Lobbying Coalition Registration Statement
  • Form 604 — Lobbyist Certification Statement
  • Form 605 — Amendment to Registration
  • Form 606 — Notice of Termination
  • Form 607 — Notice of Withdrawal
  • Form 615 — Lobbyist Report
  • Form 625 — Report of Lobbying Firm
  • Form 630 — Payments Made to Lobbying Coalitions
  • Form 635 — Report of Lobbyist Employer/Lobbying Coalition
  • Form 635-C — Payments Received by Lobbying Coalitions
  • Form 640 — Governmental Agencies Reporting
  • Form 645 — Report of $5,000 Filer
  • Form 690 — Amendment to Lobbying Disclosure Report

Fortunately the FPPC put together a Lobbying Disclosure Information Manual (.pdf)

There is an extensive collection of campaign disclosure forms for California.

The key form may be Form 461 — Independent Expenditure Committee and Major Donor Committee Campaign Statement. There is an associated manual: Campaign Disclosure Manual 5 – Information for Major Donor Candidates (.pdf).  Chapter 4 of the Manual (.pdf) details the reporting requirements.

The FPPC Regulations are very long and detailed.

Colorado’s Pay-to-Play Law

The Colorado voters passed Amendment 54 in the November, 2008 elections, which amends the Colorado Consitution to limit campaign contributions: Text of the Proposed Initiative (.pdf) and Text of the Constitutional Amendment (.pdf).

The consitutional amendment carries a presumption of impropriety between contributions to political campaigns and the award of sole source government contracts.

West Virginia’s Pay-to-Play Law

West Virgina addresses pay-to-play abuse by limiting campaign contributions during the negotiation and performance of the contract. West Viginia Code §3-8-12(d) provides:

(d) Except as provided in section eight of this article, no person entering into any contract with the State or its subdivisions, or any department or agency of the State, either for rendition of personal services or furnishing any material, supplies or equipment or selling any land or building to the State, or its subdivisions, or any department or agency of the State, if payment for the performance of the contract or payment for the material, supplies, equipment, land or building is to be made, in whole or in part, from public funds may, during the period of negotiation for or performance under the contract or furnishing of materials, supplies, equipment, land or buildings, directly or indirectly, make any contribution to any political party, committee or candidate for public office or to any person for political purposes or use; nor may any person or firm solicit any contributions for any purpose during any period.

Kentucky’s Pay-to-Play Law

Kentucky places limitation on campaign contributors who get no-bid contracts from the state.  K.R.S. §121.056(2) provides:

No person who has contributed more than the maximum legal contribution established by KRS 121.150 in any one (1) election to a slate of candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor that is elected to office or any entity in which such a person has a substantial interest shall have any contract with the Commonwealth of Kentucky during the term of office following the campaign in which the contributions shall be made unless the contract shall be attained by competitive bidding and the person or entity shall have the lowest and best bid.

(a) “Substantial interest” means the person making the contribution owns or controls ten percent (10%) or more of an entity or a member of the person’s immediate family owns or controls ten percent (10%) of the entity or the person and his immediate family together own or control ten percent (10%) or more of the entity.

(b) “Immediate family” means the spouse of the person, the parent of the person or spouse, or the child of the person or spouse.

South Carolina’s Pay-To-Play Law

South Carolina restricts campaign contributions by a contractor to a candidate who participated in awarding the contract. South Carolina Code  §8-13-1342 provides:

No person who has been awarded a contract with the State, a county, a municipality, or a political subdivision thereof, other than contracts awarded through competitive bidding practices, may make a contribution after the awarding of the contract or invest in a financial venture in which a public official has an interest if that official was in a position to act on the contract’s award. No public official or public employee may solicit campaign contributions or investments in exchange for the prior award of a contract or the promise of a contract with the State, a county, a municipality, or a political subdivision thereof.

Ohio’s Pay-To-Play Law

On January 2, 2007, then Ohio Governor Taft signed into law Substitute House Bill 694, enacting changes to Ohio’s pay-to-play laws. The new law places restrictions on many political contributors who currently hold, or are competing for, a contract with the state or local government. The new law also extends these prohibitions to many local political subdivisions that were not covered under previous versions of the law, including county commissioners, city council members, township trustees, school board members, and other local boards, commissions, task/ forces, and other authorities.

The law is currently subject to litigation.

Ohio’s pay-to-play laws are primarily in R.C. 3517.13, are triggered when

  1. a partner or owner of an LLC, LLP or partnership, or an individual who owns 20% or more of the shares of a corporation contributes over $1,000; or
  2. if those business owners, their spouses, children, and the company’s affiliated political action committee (“PAC”) cumulatively contribute over $2,000 over the course of two years.

See:

Connecticut’s Pay-to-Play Law

Connecticut’s law imposes a contribution and solicitation ban on state contractors, prospective state contractors, and their principals. A few, but not all, of the principals now covered under the law are as follows:

  • Members of the company’s Board of Directors;
  • Individuals owning 5% or more of the company’s stock;
  • Individuals at the company living or working in Connecticut with the title of president, treasurer, or executive vice president;
  • Spouses, civil union partners, and dependent children (age 18 or older and living at home) of the above; and
  • A political committee established or controlled by an individual described above or by the state contractor or prospective state contractor.

On December 19, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut upheld Connecticut’s  pay-to-play law. The court found the pay-to-play and accompanying lobbying contribution and solicitation bans to be narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, which, the court said, was significant given Connecticut’s recent history with corruption at the highest levels of state government. Green Party of Connecticut v. Garfield, No. 3:06cv1030 (D. Conn. Dec. 19, 2008).

On December 7, 2005, the Connecticut General Assembly passed “An Act Concerning Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform for State-Wide Constitutional and General Assembly Offices.” The law, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-600, et seq., became effective on December 31, 2006 (formerly codified at 9-333).

§ 9-612(f) prohibits investment services firms with state contracts from contributing to the campaigns for the State Treasurer.

§ 9-612(g) places limitations on campaign contributions by state contractors.