Your mother probably taught that “you should never discuss sex, politics, or religion in polite company.”  A political expenditure is a political opinion held strongly enough to be backed with cash.  Writing and implementing a company policy entails a dialogue among board members, officers, employees and ultimately shareholders.  Your company sells widgets – you are not a political association where members share common political views.  As a business, you would NOT look to touch anyone’s political opinion with a ten-foot pole unless there is a compelling business justification.  Mother knew best: this is one of those delicate and intrusive areas of human inter-relationship that needs to be handled with the greatest sensitivity.

Especially as this federal election year proceeds, it seems fair to say that the political environment in the U.S. is hyper-partisan.  Your company may have employees who are actively, even passionately engaged in their own political activities.  These activities are personal and likely have nothing to do with their job at the company.

The Citizens United decision demonstrates the tension between the First Amendment and campaign finance regulation.   In response, legislators are experimenting with alternative bases for reasserting some government control over political spending, such as “pay-to-play” laws.  We cannot accurately gauge the ultimate scope of these innovations and which will be upheld against the inevitable First Amendment challenge.  In this dynamic regulatory context, an “optimal” policy today may be out of date tomorrow.

Along with new opportunities and avenues for political participation after Citizens United come responsibility, scrutiny, and accountability.  A carefully-wrought company policy is the armor you must wear for political engagement.

Specifically, the hearing will concern the implementation of two requirements of the Public Integrity Reform Act of 2011:

1) Lobbyists and their clients must disclose “reportable business relationships” with a public official or entity in which a public official has an interest.

2) Certain lobbyists and their clients must disclose each source of funding in excess of $5,000 that was used to fund lobbying activities.

Written comments are due by Friday May 18.

The clarification is intended to resolve “confusion” among vendors relating to the phrase “any candidate for elective office in the County of Bergen or holder of elective office in the County of Bergen”.

The County has now made it clear that the above phrase is limited those persons who run for or are elected to, any county office in Bergen County, which includes:

• County Freeholder
• County Sheriff
• County Executive
• County Clerk
• County Surrogate

The phrase does not include:

• Candidates for elective office on a municipal level in Bergen County
• Candidates for Governor
• Candidates for Assembly
• Candidates for Senate
• Candidates for Congress whose districts include Bergen County

The treatment of contributions to party committees and continuing political committees has not changed.

Commissioner Kelly must tread carefully so as not to give his imprimatur to a mayoral political fundraising effort on his behalf.  In a 2001 opinion, the City Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) broadly construed the City Charter to prohibit high-ranking appointed officials from directly or indirectly soliciting contributions for their own campaigns for NYC office.  Thus, it is therefore likely that the new political committee would be established without the Police Commissioner’s authorization.

As an “unauthorized committee”, however, the contributions it raises would not be matchable with public funds under NYC campaign finance law.  It seems unlikely that the Campaign Finance Board would permit the candidate’s later authorization of the committee to retroactively allow for the matching of contributions.  Even if that hurdle was cleared, the candidate would face the risk that his later authorization of the draft committee could run afoul of the COIB prohibition on indirect solicitations.

Business entities can view their own reports or can search for the reports filed by their competitors by visiting ELEC’s website.

The annual disclosure requirement applies to business entities that received payments of $50,000 or more, during the previous calendar year, as a result of their government contracts in New Jersey.

Today, the Center for Public Integrity released a report ranking New Jersey the state best prepared to prevent corruption. As part of the study, each state received a “corruption risk” report card.

Although no state received an “A”, New Jersey got the highest grade with a “B+” . New York, on the other hand, received a grade of a “D” and ranked 36th out of all 50 states.

New Jersey received its top rank largely because of its sweeping pay-to-play laws, which have curbed political contributions and have increased transparency in relation to government contracting.

Two last thoughts as this new regulatory regime kicks off:

• We await final State Board of Elections action on its proposed independent expenditure disclosure rules.  Because the NYC rules encompass a broader range of communications, disclosure under the NYC rules should not be treated as prima facie evidence that the spender improperly failed to register as a unregistered political committee pursuant to state law.
• In another context, the NYC Campaign Finance Board has signaled an expansive view of “coordination” and the desire to vigorously enforce the law against unreported in-kind contributions to candidates for New York City office.  This City sheriff means to be a tough beat cop.  Don’t presume that the current Super PAC MO at the federal level will carry the day in NYC elections.