The law on limiting campaign expenditures has been changing over the past couple of years. But the law on limiting campaign contributions has not. The standard in many instances is more liberal than with campaign expenditures, in others it is the same. And the application of the standard is highly contextual. A law in one jurisdiction, or at a particular time, might be constitutional, while in another jurisdiction, or at a different time, it is not.

Contribution limits are an important part of government ethics, because contributions from those doing business with local governments, often called "legal bribery," are a major source of the belief people have that government officials can be bought. Removing this appearance of impropriety is a principal goal of public campaign financing programs.

The state of the law on limiting and banning campaign contributions from, and their solicitation by, restricted sources, including contractors and lobbyists, as well as their principals and immediate family members, is well summarized in the Second Circuit's decision in Green Party v. Garfield (July 13, 2010).

Gifts from restricted sources, that is, from those doing business with the local government (and their lobbyists), are exceptionally damaging, in that they make the public believe their officials can be bought or that their officials are running a pay-to-play government. It's too bad that at least some members of the Los Angeles ethics commission don't recognize this.

Time Limitations on Ethics Proceedings in Louisiana, and Why They're Bad
The Louisiana ethics board handles ethics, disclosure, campaign finance, and lobbying for the state and for the state's local governments. It is, like all ethics agencies, understaffed, underfunded, and overstretched. So according to an article in Monday's Baton Rouge Advocate, it has asked, among other things, for a longer period of time in which to do its work. The law now gives the board "one year from the date upon which a sworn complaint is received to either dismiss the complaint or file formal charges." (§708(A))

This seems reasonable. How long should it take simply to file charges? But this assumes (i) that there is no backlog of cases, and (ii) that everyone is cooperating. It also assumes that the ethics board can get quorums for its meetings, that there aren't other considerations, such as whether to turn the matter over to criminal authorities, and that related matters aren't discovered, expanding the investigation.

You be the judge. According to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a board member of a Georgia-based insurance company set up ten PACs in Alabama that together gave $120,000 — ten times the legal limit — to a candidate for Georgia insurance commissioner. A complaint was filed with the state ethics commission (not only is there a contribution size issue, but the contributions came from a company regulated by the candidate's office). The CEO of the insurance company is a friend of the candidate, and was appointed by the candidate to head a commission.

It's a good thing, especially in this age of fiscal austerity, when a local government affair, such as a retirement party, is not paid for out of public funds. But retirement parties, within reason, are part of any organization's calendar. Better they be reasonable and paid for by taxpayers than the alternative.

That alternative is having local government affairs paid for by those doing business with the agency, as appears to have happened in Atlanta, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The going-away party for the airport's general manager, with 250 guests, cost $22,000.

According to an article in yesterday's Morning Journal, the Law Director of Lorain, OH (a city of 70,000), advising a council member, said, “If his employer had a direct financial interest, he would have a conflict. But it does not.”

A council member who was vice president of a regional firefighters association (a union), although no longer a firefighter himself, wanted to know if he could vote on a plan to save the jobs of four city firefighters (he had already participated in the matter).