Thurs. political law links

CRAIG CASE UPDATE.  Here.  “Former U.S. Sen. Larry Craig says he needs more time in his bid to fight off demands by federal election regulators he pay $140,000 in fines and return $217,000 to his campaign that he’d used for his legal defense after his 2007 arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting.”

CO:  A FIRST IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE.  WT.  “In an American electoral first, a Colorado organization fighting new taxes on legal marijuana has filed a campaign finance disclosure report after a watchdog group complained that the group’s decision to give away free joints at a political rally could be considered a ‘campaign contribution.'”

DC:  VOTE NEXT MONTH.  Here.  “The D.C. Council will vote on a package of campaign finance reforms as soon as early next month, taking a new step in an ethics push that began in the wake of high-profile federal investigations two years ago.”

DC:  SUPREMES AND GRAY.  Here.  “The legal maneuvering in an ongoing federal investigation into Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s 2010 campaign has reached the U.S. Supreme Court and has the potential to prolong an already lengthy probe.”

MT:  RANGE OF VIEWS ON JOB.  Here.  “Those testifying before an interim legislative committee Monday offered widely divergent opinions about the role of the state political practices commissioner and how the office should be structured.”

TX:  ETHICS ACCUSATIONS.  Here.  “Mayor Annise Parker and top challenger Ben Hall may have the least happy pen pal relationship in recent memory.”

WA:  522 GROUP SUIT.  Here.  “State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said Tuesday he will still seek penalties against a food industry group that recently identified donors who contributed money to oppose a food labeling initiative.”

HAVE A GREAT DAY.

Wed. political law links

BILLS RISE. Here. ” A congressman . . . has paid $25,000 for his legal defense before a panel probing his campaign spending.”

PEOPLE’S PLEDGES AND CFR. Story here. “Recently, another approach has emerged: private contracts between candidates about spending by third party groups outside the control of the campaign. ”

TWITTER LOBBYING. The Post. “Altogether, Twitter spent about $40,000 lobbying Congress, according to the filing. That’s pocket change compared to the likes of Microsoft and AT&T, which spent $2.2 million and $4.3 million, respectively.”

QUESTIONING MANDATORY DISCLOSURE. Here. “Reading the historical record left me with the conviction that the Founders would have found mandatory disclosure of contributors to political advertising an outrageous violation of privacy. And certainly inconsistent with freedom of the press.”

NSA: WEALTH OF DATA. The Verge. “Once the agency gained access, according to Spiegel, a top secret May 2010 report reveals that it monitored ‘diplomatic, economic and leadership communications which continue to provide insight into Mexico’s political system and internal stability.'” Given the continued reporting on the NSA, a novel or movie involving NSA surveillance of U.S. political targets may not seem too far-fetched.

AZ: HORNE DENIES. Here. “In his first extensive comments about the report, Horne said he has no intention of paying back $400,000 that Sheila Polk said was illegally funneled into his 2010 race by what was supposed to be an independent campaign committee. He called the allegations “technical” and insisted he will be vindicated.”

MA: WOLF OUT. Boston Herald. “State Sen. Dan Wolf said he’s officially ending his stalled gubernatorial run amid after realizing it could be ‘several more months, quite possibly longer’ until the state Ethics Commission reaches a decision that would allow him back on the campaign trail.”

MI: SUPER PAC UP. Here. “The latest :30 spot from the not-at-all-affiliated-with-Mike-Duggan (they don’t even know him!) superPAC Turnaround Detroit asks why Benny Napoleon is attacking Duggan. ”

NJ: FREEZE SOUGHT. Here. “State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and his campaign committee went to court today in an effort to freeze more than $75,000 in contributions to his Republican opponent, Niki Trunk, because of questions over who gave her the money.”

HAVE A GREAT DAY.

Tues. political law links

CONSERVATIVE NOTES SPENDING. The Times. “A new book from a conservative advocate of tighter campaign finance regulations seeks to draw attention to a number of questionable but legal fund-raising activities — some potentially damaging, others certainly embarrassing — that could prove uncomfortable for some on Capitol Hill.”

GA:  OUTSIDE PROBE.  Story here.  “Key details of who will handle an outside investigation into the state ethics commission are close to being finalized, the panel’s chairman said Monday said Monday.”

GA:  ETHICS BITE.  Here.  “It’s possible, if not probable, that Georgia could put teeth into its notoriously gummy ethics oversight system early next year. And under the right (or wrong, depending on one’s perspective) circumstances, some of those teeth might belong to Georgia voters.”

LA:  CHARGES DROPPED.  Story here.  “The state Ethics Board has dropped its charges against former Jefferson Parish Council member Jennifer Sneed, a board staffer said Monday. The decision came after the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal found Oct. 7 that the charges were unconstitutional.”

NJ:  SUPER PAC SPENDS.  Here.  “Its gubernatorial candidate may be on the ropes, but the New Jersey Education Association is not holding back in the upcoming New Jersey election and is already spending triple its previous totals in campaign efforts.”

VA:  ETHICS CHANGES SOUGHT.  Story here.  “The General Assembly is preparing to add a little ethics to the Code of Virginia without first campaigning much on the specific changes or engaging voters in serious discussions of ethics rules.”

GER:  BMW FAMILY GIVES.  Story here.  “Now, three living family members own nearly half of the German brand, and stand accused of buying votes with donations to the party of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, mere days ahead of a European Union vote that would cap vehicle emissions.”

UK:  LOBBYING BILL ISSUES.  Views here.  “This bill is supposed to do two big things. The first is to tackle the unhealthily obscure network of connections between lobbyists, politicians and Whitehall officials. The bill does not advance this objective by an inch. Campaigners say that as little as 1% of lobbying activity will be affected by it. The second ostensible aim is to restrict third-party campaigning in election periods.”

HAVE A GREAT DAY.