2016 Presidential Conventions: What Delegates and Attendees Need to Know

With the 2016 presidential conventions underway and as the November presidential election draws near, this post is part of a series on what different entities and groups need to know about their political activity as the 2016 election approaches. This post examines the rules governing contributions made to convention delegates under federal law.

Permissible Contributions to Delegates

Events and gifts paid for by the host cities (in this case, Cleveland, Ohio and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) may be accepted by delegates. It is also permissible for a delegate to accept any gift paid for by any unit of federal, state, or local government. Delegates are also permitted to accept meals, lodging, entertainment, and transportation from a political organization in connection with a campaign or fundraising event that the organization is sponsoring.

Classification of Funds Raised and Spent for Delegate Activity

Funds raised and spent for the purpose of furthering delegate selection are considered contributions and expenditures made for the purpose of influencing a federal election. There are no limitations on the monetary amount of contributions from permissible sources to delegates for the purpose of furthering their own selection as delegates. Once selected, travel and subsistence expenses related to the delegate selection process and the national nominating convention are considered expenditures. Additional considerations may arise when a federal candidate or officeholder attends the convention as a delegate.

Who is Prohibited from Contributing to a Delegate?

Individual delegates may not accept contributions from sources prohibited from making contributions in connection with federal elections. These sources include:

  • Corporations (including banks, trade associations, and non-profit corporations);
  • Labor organizations;
  • Foreign nationals or businesses (except lawful permanent residents); and
  • Federal government contractors, such as partnerships and sole proprietors with federal contracts.

With the Republican National Convention underway and the Democratic National Convention is only a few days away, it is not too late for delegates and their potential supporters to be aware of the rules.

Babatunde Odubekun, a summer associate at Genova Burns, assisted in the preparation of this post.

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.

McCutcheon v. FEC: the Potential Impact on Aggregate Contribution Limits Under Local Pay-to-Play Ordinances

Last week the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC, a challenge to the constitutionality of aggregate contribution limits under federal campaign finance law.

In addition to imposing base contribution limits, federal campaign finance law imposes an aggregate individual biennial limit of $123,200.  Out of this $123,200, an individual may not contribute more than $48,600 to candidate committees or more than $74,600 to any other federal committees (out of this $74,600, no more than $48,600 may be given to committees that are not national party committees).

Last week’s oral argument centered around whether aggregate contribution limits are justified by the need to prevent undue influence in the political process or are contrary to First Amendment rulings constraining the government’s ability to impose restrictions aimed at equalizing participation in federal elections.

If the Supreme Court holds that aggregate contribution limits are unconstitutional, the ruling will likely also be felt at the state level.  Currently, eight (8) states, including New York, impose analogous aggregate contribution limits on a single contributor’s contributions to multiple recipients during a specified time period.  What is less clear is how the McCutcheon ruling might impact aggregate contribution limits under local pay-to-play ordinances in New Jersey.

Many New Jersey local pay-to-play ordinances place an aggregate limit on the amount that a “business entity” may contribute to a group of covered political recipients during a specified time period.  (The definition of business entity may encompass one or more contributors, depending on the complexity of the entity and specified relationships.)  Putting aside issues associated with subjecting multiple contributors to the same aggregate limit, the question posed by a potential McCutcheon holding is whether there is a significant constitutional distinction between an across-the-board aggregate limit and an aggregate limit imposed solely as a condition of eligibility for a government contract.

Given that these local aggregate contribution limits are designed solely to prevent corruption, or the appearance thereof, in the government procurement process, these aggregate limits may withstand constitutional scrutiny regardless of the outcome in McCutcheon.  In other words, the local pay-to-play aggregate limits may be constitutionally distinct because businesses and individuals have a choice between engaging in business with the government (thereby voluntarily subjecting themselves to additional limitations meant to ensure the integrity of those business dealings) or fully participating in local elections by making bigger contributions to more recipients up to higher contribution limits.

A different federal case, Wagner v. FEC, which challenges the federal ban on contributions by government contractors may, in the end, prove more relevant to the continuing viability of the local aggregate limits and other features of pay-to-play laws.

 

ELEC Issues August Newsletter

The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission has issued its August newsletter. The newsletter discusses the role of public financing in New Jersey’s gubernatorial election, trends on independent spending by outside groups and fundraising by the “Big Six” Committees in the second quarter of 2013. The newsletter also discusses the pending appeal in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission (a challenge to the long-standing federal contractor ban) and the impact that the ultimate decision in that case may have on New Jersey’s own pay-to-play laws.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC) is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Wagner v. FEC on Monday, September 30, 2013.