Yesterday, the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (“ELEC”) issued its 2009 Annual report, which calls for uniformity in New Jersey’s pay to play restrictions.

The Annual Report suggests that the time has come for ELEC and the Legislature to work together to overhaul New Jersey’s pay to play system.  The goal is to “simplify and standardize” the various state, county and local laws by creating a cohesive set of restrictions statewide.

ELEC’s recommended changes, which require legislative action, include:

• Extending current statewide pay to play restrictions to county and municipal vendors;

• Removing the “fair and open process” exception for local pay to play laws;

• Potentially raising the reduced pay to play contribution limit from $300 to $1,000 (if the fair and open process exception is abolished); and

• Lowering the filing threshold for the ELEC Business Entity Annual Disclosure Statement from $50,000 to $17,500.

ELEC’s desire to overhaul New Jersey’s pay to play laws may stem from a hearing held earlier this year before the N.J. Assembly Judiciary Committee.  The hearing focused on the impact of Citizens United on New Jersey’s campaign finance and pay to play laws.  All those testifying agreed that complying with New Jersey’s pay to play laws has become increasingly difficult because of the variations among all of the pay to play restrictions.

Should legislation to promote uniformity move forward, how will it treat labor unions?  Governor Christie’s Executive Order 7 is currently being challenged in court.

ELEC’s recommendations for overhauling New Jersey’s pay to play system come in the wake of amendments to New Jersey’s pay to play regulations, which took effect earlier this week.  In short, ELEC’s recent amendments:

• Require business entities filing annual disclosure statements to maintain their records for four (4) years;

• Make it clear that a currency contribution in any amount will trigger pay to play prohibition and disclosure provisions; and

• Delete references to not-for-profits from the annual disclosure filing requirements.

Associate Bonnie B. Fire contributed to this post.

Yesterday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order reactivating the appeal in Ognibene v. Parkes, which challenges NYC’s  doing business contribution limits and the extension of the City’s corporate contributions ban to LLCs and partnerships.  We’ve previously described the case here.

The order allows Appellants to file a supplemental brief specifically addressing the “importance” of Citizens United and gives the City the opportunity to respond.

The NYC Campaign Finance Board made its position clear in a press release issued on the day that Citizens United was decided.

In light of the Supreme Court’s rationale in Citizens United that “restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others” are prohibited, this case may test whether Citizens United has any applicability to speaker-based contribution limits.

Yesterday, the New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the impact of the Citizens United decision on New Jersey’s campaign finance and pay-to-play laws.  Among the expert witnesses was Angelo J. Genova, founding partner of Genova, Burns & Giantomasi.

The general consensus was that New Jersey’s existing campaign finance laws are not directly affected by the Supreme Court holding unconstitutional campaign expenditure limitations for corporations.    Mr. Genova cautioned, however, that the logic underpinning the decision could ultimately impact current restrictions on political participation that are keyed to the identity of the speaker, such as the ban on contributions from regulated industries and pay-to-play restrictions.  At this early stage, in the wake of Citizens United, it remains to be seen whether the presumptive corrupting influence of money will stand as a justification for such identity-based restrictions.

Associate Bonnie B. Fire contributed to this post.

Today,  Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen issued a legislative proposal in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.  Proposals include banning expenditures by corporations with a more than 20 percent foreign interest, TARP recipients, and federal contractors, and  increased disclosure to the public and to shareholders.

The expectation is that NYC Mayor Bloomberg will soon appoint a Charter Revision Commission. The Commission would conduct a review of the New York City Charter, ultimately proposing a new charter or amendments to be voted on by referendum.

Theoretically, the Commission would be an independent City agency. As a practical matter, especially in recent years, mayors have taken a dominant role in shaping past commissions’ agendas and proposals. Indeed, like the mayor, various officials and employees of the City of New York have potentially enormous stakes in the changes Charter revision may make in the City’s government for years to come. Government officials and employees can therefore be expected to advocate for their institutional interests.

Lobbying regulation is intended to shed light on attempts to influence the actions of public officials. Will City and State lobbying laws facilitate public scrutiny of City officials’ and employees’ efforts to influence the actions of a Charter Revision Commission? Read more »

The “other holding” in Citizens United, the one in which eight justices concurred, upheld federal disclaimer and public disclosure requirements as applied to the film Hillary and televised advertisements for the film.  Looking perhaps to the future, the majority reflected that “[a] campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today.”

Likewise, looking to the future, this week at the 2010 annual meeting of the New York State Bar Association, the Committee on Attorneys in Public Service sponsored panel discussions on The State Legislature and the State Constitution: The Path Forward.  My presentation addressed recent proposals to reform campaign financing, and included consideration of the Citizens United decision. Read more »

No later than March 30, 2010, business entities that received payments of $50,000 or more through New Jersey government contracts in calendar year 2009 are required to file a Business Entity Annual Disclosure Form with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission. Read more »

Contribution and pay-to-play restrictions often allow for refunds to “correct” an over-the-limit contribution. The power of a refund varies by statute. Here are a few examples. Read more »

Today, in a 5-4 ruling, the United States Supreme Court changed the Constitutional landscape for campaign finance reform.  In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, the Court lifted the long-standing ban on corporate and union independent expenditures in federal elections, but upheld Federal Election Commission disclosure and disclaimer requirements on those ads. Read more »

Governor Christie’s Executive Order No. 7 modifies prior executive orders (implicitly Executive Orders 117 and 118 signed by Governor Corzine in 2008) by amending the term “business entity” to include labor unions and labor organizations, and political committees formed by such organizations. The Governor explained that EO 7 would bring unions within the “pay-to-play” regulatory regime in order “to level the playing field.” Read more »