When it Comes to Pay-to-Play, Not All Political Recipients are Created Equal

If any New Jersey State contractor or potential State contractor out there ever thought that it didn’t need to put political-activity and pay-to-play compliance at the top of its “To Do” list, we have a cautionary tale for you.

Earlier this week, after losing out on the opportunity to perform two separate NJDOT contracts worth just over $7 million, the Superior Court, Appellate Division in Mercer County held that a paving company would remain ineligible for New Jersey state government contracts through the end of Governor Chris Christie’s current term of office because the company made a $500 contribution to a county party committee. Under New Jersey’s pay-to-play laws, contributions that exceed $300 per calendar year to a county political party committee will disqualify the contributor for contracts with the State of New Jersey Executive Branch. In this case, the devil is in the details – the company wrote its check payable to the “Somerset County Republican Org to Elect Provenzano,” referencing a candidate for County Sheriff. The contribution was made in connection with an event sponsored by the Somerset County Republican Organization, which provided attendees with the option of making their checks payable to different recipients. Unfortunately for the paving company, the payee name on its check was ambiguous and was eventually deposited by the Somerset County Republican Organization. If the company check had been more clear, or had been deposited by the County Sheriff candidate (or had been made payable to the County Freeholder candidates that were also listed on the invitation), the paving company would not have been declared ineligible for contracts with the State of New Jersey. The company only realized the implications of the contribution after the close of the 30-day refund period, and thus finds itself sitting on the sidelines for the remainder of Governor Christie’s current term of office.

This case reaffirms that although both contributors and recipients sometimes make mistakes, New Jersey’s Executive Branch pay-to-play restrictions provide no room for “inadvertent” contributions except during the limited 30-day refund period. In this case, the President of the company “signed the check as a matter of office routine since he signs virtually all company checks every month.” There is nothing routine when it comes to New Jersey pay-to-play restrictions. What is the moral of the story?  If you hold a State contract with the New Jersey Executive Branch and are thinking of making a political contribution, be informed about the State’s stringent pay-to-play laws and implement careful compliance and oversight policies for political contributions. Make it crystal clear who the recipient of your contribution is.  Don’t let lax compliance and an inadvertent $500 contribution cost you $7 million in contracts.

Calling all New Jersey Government Contractors: What is your Plan for Political Activity Compliance in Anticipation of the 2017 Gubernatorial Election?

With only 19 days until the presidential election and the final debate being held tonight, most of the country is focused on national politics. Although the presidential election may be taking center stage, now is the time for companies to focus on their New Jersey political-activity compliance.

We are currently within the 18-month period before the inauguration of New Jersey’s next governor, which means that a contribution made today may impact your company’s eligibility for contracts with the State of New Jersey for years to come. If your company or even one covered individual (including officers, shareholders, equity partners or their spouses, civil-union partners and resident children) contributes more than $300 to a gubernatorial candidate or certain other political recipients, your company could be declared ineligible for contracts with the State of New Jersey through January of 2022!

Focusing on political-activity compliance is important for all companies, but it is especially important if your company has recently gone through a merger, conducted a re-organization, hired new officers or partners, promoted individuals within your company to new roles or simply needs a refresher. If you have no policy is place, it is not too late to adopt one before New Jersey’s gubernatorial election kicks into full swing and you find yourselves ineligible to compete for government-contracting opportunities.

Pay-to-Play for New Jersey Public-Sector Labor Unions?

New Jersey’s pay-to-play laws are perhaps the most stringent in the country, with a web of overlapping laws, executive orders, and ordinances covering procurement contracts and redevelopment agreements with all levels of government. As the law stands now, labor union collective-bargaining agreements are not covered by any of these pay-to-play restrictions. (Governor Christie issued an Executive Order in 2010 that would have expanded existing pay-to-play restrictions to cover labor unions, but this Executive Order was struck down because it didn’t advance any then-existing legislative act or constitutional mandate.)

But there have been renewed calls in recent days to enact Senate Bill 341, which would limit the political contributions of those labor unions that enter into collective negotiations agreements with the State of New Jersey, or with New Jersey counties and municipalities.  Unlike current statewide Executive Branch pay-to-play restrictions, the proposed legislation provides for monetary penalties for violations. This legislation raises the possibility of a future amendment of New Jersey’s current statewide Executive Branch pay-to-play restrictions to provide for monetary penalties in the traditional procurement context as well. If passed, these new union pay-to-play restrictions would represent a profound transformation in New Jersey’s pay-to-play regime and for New Jersey politics as a whole.

New Jersey’s 2016 Primary: Potential Pitfalls of Per Election & Pay-to-Play Limits

New Jersey held its 2016 primary election on Tuesday, June 7, 2016. While most of the focus has been on the presidential primary, individuals and entities that contribute in connection with New Jersey state and local elections need to keep the following in mind:

  • New Jersey campaign finance law sets “per election” limits for contributions to candidate committees; however, the limit does not automatically reset the day after the primary election. Rather, the 2016 primary election cycle remains open until Friday, June 24, 2016 (candidates are required to file a 20-day post-election report with ELEC on Monday, June 27, 2016). So, any contribution made between the primary election and June 24, 2016 will count toward the 2016 primary and not the 2016 general. This is an important consideration if a contributor is concerned with pay-to-play compliance and wants to limit contributions to a particular candidate to no more than $300 per election.
    • If a contributor wants a contribution to count toward the 2016 primary, the contributor should make sure that the check arrives before June 24, 2016 and that the recipient committee will report the contribution in connection with the 2016 primary.
    • If a contributor wants a contribution to count toward the 2016 general, the contributor should wait to send the check after the June 24 “cut off” date to avoid any confusion (and the possibility of exceeding a pay-to-play limit).
  • New Jersey campaign finance law sets “per calendar” year limits for contributions to party committees, PACs and legislative leadership committees. So, if a contributor is concerned with pay-to-play compliance and wants to limit contributions to $300 or less, the limit does not re-set now that the primary is over.
  • Some New Jersey pay-to-play ordinances set “per calendar year,” “per contract” or “per election cycle” limits for contributions to candidates. Some even prohibit contributions in any amount during certain periods of time. So, if your company does business with a particular county or municipality or wishes to remain eligible for future contracts with a particular county or municipality, do not assume that because the 2016 primary election is over, it is now safe to write another check.

Less Than One Month: NJ ELEC Broadens Annual Pay-to-Play Form & Requires Companies to Disclose Additional Information

Recent changes in the annual filing requirement for companies doing business with local, county or state government in New Jersey may make the process for completing this year’s ELEC Business Entity Annual Statement (“Form BE”) more complicated and time consuming. Although ELEC has yet to issue guidance on these additional requirements, government vendors must still electronically file the disclosure form by the March 30 submission deadline.

In effect since 2006, Form BE requires every company that receives payments of $50,000 or more from New Jersey government entities to disclose those contracts as well as its reportable New Jersey political contributions. All businesses that receive such payments must file regardless of whether the company or certain associated people have made any reportable contributions, but the level of detail required by Form BE depends on whether you have any contributions to report.

There are two new requirements for the 2015 reporting year (due March 30):

  • Fair-and-Open Check Box Requirement: Check a box to indicate whether each contract was awarded pursuant to a “fair-and-open-process”; and
  • Certification Requirement: Certify that the statements and/or information contained in Form BE are true and acknowledge that if any of the statements or information are willfully false that you may be subject to punishment.

Expect completing your 2015 Form BE to be more time consuming than in the past. Here are some obstacles to be on the alert for:

  • Businesses may find it challenging and time consuming to identify whether a contract was awarded pursuant to a “fair-and-open-process” given that your 2015 Form BE may cover long-term contracts that could very well have been awarded years ago.
  • In many cases it will be unclear how vendors should classify Executive Branch contracts awarded pursuant to a competitive process because the phrase “fair-and-open process” is a term of art with respect to county, municipal and legislative contracts.
  • In past years, ELEC asked the person filing Form BE to simply “acknowledge” that he or she was familiar with the information contained in the Form BE. Now, ELEC is asking the person filing Form BE to certify to the accuracy of the statement and to acknowledge that he or she may be subject to punishment for willfully false information.

New Jersey Lobbying Reports Due on February 16, 2016

A business that engages in New Jersey lobbying must electronically file an annual report with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission. Although the filing is normally due on February 15, this year’s deadline is moved to February 16 because of Presidents’ Day.

Any business that expended at least $2,500 on New Jersey lobbying during the 2015 calendar year is required to file the annual lobbying disclosure—but the specific form to be used depends on the particular facts and circumstances of the company’s lobbying efforts.

Short-Form Disclosure (Form L-2) – A business that is represented by only one lobbyist may file a short-form disclosure that merely designates the lobbyist to file the annual report on behalf of the business. The lobbyist’s report would then cover all relevant information about the lobbying efforts of the business.

Compliance Tip: If you are relying upon an outside lobbyist to file on your behalf be sure to communicate that expectation to your outside lobbying firm.

Full Disclosure (Form L1-L) – In contrast, a business that is represented by more than one lobbyist (either in-house or through an outside lobbying firm) must file its own lobbying form. As you prepare this form, you will need the following information for each of your lobbyists or lobbying firms:

  • Lobbyist information;
  • Lobbying purpose;
  • Compensation of lobbyist;
  • Prior government service of lobbyist; and
  • Communications expenses.

Compliance Tip: For an in-house lobbyist who performs functions other than lobbying for your organization, you are not required to report that individual’s total compensation; rather, you should report only the portion of his or her compensation that pertains to lobbying.

Grassroots-Lobbying Disclosure (Form L1-G) – This form is geared specifically toward a business whose only lobbying activity is communicating with the general public, also known as grassroots lobbying. The information required to be disclosed on this form is focused on the relevant expenditures and communications of the business.

Compliance Tip: A communication with the general public for the purposes of this form does not include communications by a business to its members, partners, individuals, or stockholders. Similarly, communications required to be made by law are not communications with the general public in this context.  

Consent to Service of Process (Form L-3) – An out-of-state business that engages in New Jersey lobbying must consent to service of process within the State of New Jersey by filing this form.

Compliance Tip: This form is required for any company that is not authorized to do business in New Jersey and for any individual who is not a resident of New Jersey.

In addition, lobbying firms must file their own specific forms to report their lobbying activity from the applicable calendar year.

If your business has not yet determined its lobbying-disclosure obligations, there is still time to do so before the February 16, 20 deadline.

Pay-to-Play Resolutions

As we approach the end of the first work week of 2016, companies should be thinking about their “pay-to-play resolutions” in the upcoming year. New Jersey is home to numerous and varied pay-to-play restrictions. One misstep can have severe consequences. New Jersey’s pay-to-play restrictions may make your head spin, but any company that does business (or wants to do business) with the New Jersey government needs to make compliance with these laws part of its 2016 business plan.

Although many companies think that they have their political activity compliance program under control, companies often ignore these key facts:

  1. The laws change;
  2. Similar laws are often interpreted differently; and
  3. Those covered by pay-to-play restrictions within your organization may change from year to year as people join your team, leave your team or change positions within your company.

As 2012 came to a close, we discussed 2013 Pay-to-Play Resolutions. Given, however, that we are now in a Presidential election year and New Jersey’s gubernatorial election is not far behind, it is important to address pay-to-play resolutions once again. As we enter this busy political season with many hotly contested issues (and races), thinking that individuals within your company are going to sit on the sidelines is not realistic. If you are a government contractor (or hope to be one in the future), now is the perfect time to make the adoption of a meaningful political activity compliance program a key part of your list of New Year’s resolutions.

 

Public-Private Partnerships and Pay-to-Play in New Jersey: “P3s and P2P in the Garden State”

Public-Private Partnerships (commonly known as “P3s”) are very popular across the country, including the recently announced renovations at LaGuardia Airport as one example. P3s are also gaining significant attention here in New Jersey. Although P3s have thus far been focused on educational settings in New Jersey, there is potential for this funding method to be used for a wide variety of projects ranging from infrastructure to transportation.

P3s are often touted as a solution for economic growth and development because a private entity steps in to fill a funding gap that is not being filled by the government. Because, however, P3s require a private entity to “partner” with the government, private entities that are interested in participating in P3s need to be mindful of New Jersey’s pay-to-play restrictions, which limit a business entity’s eligibility for government contracts or agreements based on political contributions. For example, if a private entity wants to enter into a public-partnership with the State of New Jersey, the private entity needs to make sure that the entity and certain associated individuals (such as the entity’s officers and owners) have not made “reportable” contributions (a contribution greater than $300) to a New Jersey gubernatorial candidate, political party committee or legislative leadership committee within certain periods of time that may range from 18 months to 5 ½ years. If a private entity wants to partner with the government at the local level, the entity will need to certify compliance with local pay-to-play restrictions, which may contain an absolute ban on contributions (in any amount) and may also cover contributions to PACs that provide support to local candidates and party committees.

Although pay-to-play compliance is often the last piece of the “P3” puzzle, it cannot be overlooked. If a private entity cannot certify compliance with New Jerseys pay-to-play restrictions, this failure may result in significant delays or may even render the private entity ineligible for the project. As businesses explore new opportunities to work with the government, they will have to keep in mind that their political contributions may affect eligibility for P3s and other contracting opportunities.

Political Law Roundup – July 13, 2015

This is the first post in a new series on the blog, providing a quick recap of recent political-law news and developments.

  • What role will non-profits have on the 2016 presidential election? According to a report in the New York Times, 501(c)(4) political activity is expected to be an important factor in the upcoming race.
  • In Wagner v. FEC, the DC Circuit Court upheld the prohibition on political contributions by federal contractors. You can see our full analysis of this important case here.
  • Challenges in defining coordination and enforcing restrictions means that Super PACs will continue to play an important role in federal elections, including the 2016 presidential race.
  • The New York City Campaign Finance Board is holding a hearing on Monday, July 13, 2015 to solicit comments on proposed amendments to Board rules on public-funds eligibility and disclosure-statement documentation. More information is available here.
  • The Brennan Center for Justice, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Committee for Economic Development will be hosting a conference titled American Elections at the Crossroads, on Wednesday, July 22. Ann Ravel, chair of the FEC, will deliver remarks.

Pay-to-Play Implications of Governor Chris Christie’s Presidential Run

After today’s announcement, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie joins a long list of 2016 presidential candidates, from both parties. But Christie’s position as a sitting governor means that he is subject to different campaign-finance rules than some of his opponents.

In particular, under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s pay-to-play rules, investment advisors are subject to reduced contribution limits when making political contributions to a covered candidate or official—including any official who has authority to appoint members to government funds that select investment advisors. Governor Christie, who appoints members to the New Jersey State Investment Council, is covered by the SEC pay-to-play restrictions, even in a campaign for federal office. Similarly, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has its own pay-to-play restriction that covers municipal-securities dealers. Under guidance issued by the MSRB, this rule applies to presidential campaigns of covered State officeholders. Covered municipal-securities professionals may therefore be subject to reduced contribution limits for Governor Christie’s presidential run. These pay-to-play restrictions apply not just to Governor Christie but may also apply to such other 2016 presidential candidates as Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, and John Kasich—all sitting governors.

For political prognosticators, it is worth considering how a presidential candidate from the northeast, who may expect extensive support from Wall Street, will fare when political contributions from the financial community are potentially governed by SEC, MSRB, and local pay-to-play rules. But it is equally important for the investment advisors and financial professionals themselves to keep these restrictions in mind, to ensure that their political contributions do not jeopardize their firms’ government contracts. Although there may be understandable excitement over a local presidential candidate, it is crucially important for investment advisors in New Jersey, Wall Street, and beyond to understand these pay-to-play restrictions and to abide by their limits.

Page 1 of 1212345...10...Last »