Compliance Notes - Vol. 7, Issue 18
RECENT LOBBYING, ETHICS & CAMPAIGN FINANCE UPDATES
U.S. Supreme Court Election Law Developments
National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown: On September 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stayed a Fourth Circuit court decision that had invalidated a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “public notice” allowing political parties and joint fundraising committees to qualify for broadcasters’ preferential advertising rates available to federal candidates. The Court concluded the Republican congressional committees challenging the ruling were likely to succeed on their argument that the Fourth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the FCC Media Bureau’s notice while a petition for agency review remained pending before the FCC. The Court also found the committees faced irreparable harm because broadcasters had already begun rescinding the more favorable rates, increasing advertising costs before the November 2026 election. The stay allows the FCC’s notice to remain in effect while further proceedings continue. (Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog)
Campaign Finance & Lobbying Compliance
James Talarico’s Senate campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging Senate nominee Ken Paxton and his campaign treasurer improperly used a nonprofit organization-- Preserve Texas, Inc.-- to raise and spend funds outside federal contribution limits and donor disclosure requirements. The complaint focuses on more than $1 million the nonprofit contributed to a pro-Paxton super PAC and alleges the organization was established and controlled by Paxton’s campaign treasurer. Preserve Texas denied the allegations and stated it operates independently. (Gabe Kaminsky, CBS News)
Colorado: Colorado election regulators are seeking a $51,427 fine against gubernatorial nominee Victor Marx over alleged campaign finance violations after determining that his campaign accepted more than $83,560 in contributions, exceeding the state’s $1,450 individual contribution limit. According to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Elections Division, the campaign’s noncompliance was “unprecedented,” and officials contend Marx has not fully rectified the violations despite refunding a portion of the excess donations. The campaign maintains that some contributions were properly reattributed to joint account holders, while regulators argue it has not provided sufficient documentation to support those reattributions. Marx also faces separate campaign finance complaints alleging that he improperly solicited unlimited contributions through an online merchandise store. (Chase Woodruff, Colorado Newsline)
Government Ethics & Transparency
On September 3, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed repealing a 2010 “pay-to-play” regulation that prevents investment advisers from providing paid services to government clients for two years after making certain political contributions. SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the rule has generated “unintended consequences” and imposed significant penalties for inconsequential contributions. The proposal is subject to a 60-day public comment period. (Reuters)
Arizona: The Arizona Attorney General’s Office opened a criminal investigation into Green Party candidates Risa Lombardo and Duwayne Collier and Republican candidate Scott Neely over allegations that false $5 qualifying contributions were used to secure millions in public campaign funding. At least six individuals whose names appeared on contribution records denied making the reported donations, and separate reviews identified substantial overlap among the contributor lists submitted by the three candidates. The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission has directed its executive director to complete an investigation and issue a recommendation regarding repayment of the public funds. The candidates could face class six felony charges if investigators determine they knowingly used another person’s name to make or accept campaign contributions. (Caitlin Sievers, Arizona Mirror)
Ballot Measures
Michigan: Michigan voters will decide in the November 3, 2026, General Election whether to adopt Proposal 2, a campaign finance measure aimed at limiting political influence by large state contractors and utilities. Michigan law already prohibits corporations and unions from contributing directly to candidates, but Proposal 2 would extend contribution restrictions to company officials of utilities and companies with more than $250,000 in state contracts. The measure also would require groups that run issue-advertisements mentioning candidates or ballot measures within 100 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election to disclose their donors. Critics argue the proposal fails to address political spending by unions and by out-of-state interests that do not hold qualifying Michigan state contracts, while supporters contend it would curb pay-to-play politics and close “loopholes” in Michigan’s campaign finance structure. (Jordyn Hermani, Bridge Michigan)
We read the news, cut through the noise and provide you the notes.
Compliance Notes from Nossaman’s Government Relations & Regulation Group is a periodic digest of the headlines, statutory and regulatory changes and court cases involving campaign finance, lobbying compliance, election law and government ethics issues at the federal, state and local level. Our attorneys, policy advisors and compliance consultants are available to discuss any questions or how specific issues may impact your business. If there is a particular subject or jurisdiction you’d like to see covered, please let us know.
