When the Virginia Legislature recently passed a bill allowing people to carry guns in bars as long as they have a permit, the move raised eyebrows in the state and across the country. Former Governor Tim Kaine, a Democrat, had vetoed a similar bill in 2009. And this year, Virginia’s association of police chiefs loudly urged the state’s new governor, Republican Bob McDonnell, to veto the bill.

“We can fully expect that at some point in the future a disagreement that today would likely end up in a verbal confrontation, or a bar fight, will inevitably end with gunfire if you sign this legislation into law,” Virginia Beach police Chief Jake Jacocks, Jr. wrote in a letter to the governor.

McDonnell signed the bill anyway, one of more than a dozen pro-gun bills Virginia approved this year; the guns-in-bars law is set to take effect next week. It was one victory for gun-rights advocates in what has been a fruitful year for them in state legislatures. Tennessee lawmakers passed a law similar to Virginia’s, over the veto of Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen. Georgia lawmakers lifted a prohibition against drinking alcohol while carrying a gun in public, and made it legal for people to carry guns in some areas of airports. And Indiana approved a measure allowing employees to take guns with them to work as long as they’re kept out of sight in a locked vehicle on a company-owned parking lot.

This week, gun-rights advocates may have even more to cheer about. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Second Amendment is also binding on state and local governments. The case reviewed whether that city’s complete ban on handguns violates its residents’ right to bear arms. Two years ago, the court decided that a similar law in the District of Columbia did violate the Second Amendment, and many legal experts expected the court to extend that precedent to state and local gun laws around the country.

Robert Weisberg, a criminal justice expert at Stanford University Law School, is one of them. “There’s no question,” he says, “that there will be a huge increase in lawsuits against lots of state and local laws.”

Still, Weisberg points out that if the Supreme Court rules as expected, it’s no guarantee that state and local gun laws will be thrown out. Both the D.C. and Chicago laws were quite draconian by nature — outright bans on certain guns in the cities — which made them more susceptible to a constitutional challenge. Convincing a court to find weaker regulations in violation of a person’s Second Amendment rights won’t be an easy task.
A states’ rights argument

In the legislatures this year, the most recent wave of action is part of a trend toward states loosening gun laws in the wake of the 2008 presidential election. Some saw the return of a Democratic administration in Washington as a sign that gun control could once again become an issue of national political and legal significance. There’s also been hints of the states’ rights sentiment that has fueled state lawsuits against the federal health care overhaul, as well as anger toward Washington in general.

Some advocates of stricter gun controls say the legislative damage hasn’t been as bad as it might seem. Brian Malte, the state legislation and politics director at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says that while some states have moved in a more pro-gun direction, it’s mostly states that already were considered gun-friendly in the past. “They have been successful in some of these states,” Malte admits, “but it’s the same states.”

Malte points to states such as California, Illinois and much of the Northeast, where he says gun advocates have largely failed to make inroads. And gun-control advocates have played offense some this session, too. In New York State, for example, the Assembly passed “microstamping” legislation, before the bill stalled in the Senate, although supporters hope to revive it this fall. The bill would require that semiautomatic pistols made or sold in the state stamp cartridges with the make, model and serial number of the gun when it’s fired. In California, the Assembly passed a bill that would ban the practice known as “open carry,” which allows people to carry an unloaded gun in plain sight, even if the person also is carrying ammunition as well.

Still, gun-rights advocates are feeling emboldened enough to try new tactics in the legislatures and the courts. Last year, Montana and Tennessee enacted a law called the “Firearms Freedom Act,” a measure that exempts guns and ammunition made, sold and used within the states from federal regulations. This year, the same law was passed by six more states: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Advocates say the measure is a matter of states’ rights. The federal government has no business regulating guns and ammunition that are not part of interstate commerce, they say.

Last October, on the day Montana’s law went into effect, gun-rights supporters filed suit against the federal government, seeking to nullify federal gun regulations. The case is in the early stages, but the U.S. Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have repeatedly discounted the validity of the Firearms Freedom Act, arguing that federal law still requires a license to manufacture or sell guns and ammunition, regardless of whether those materials travel across state lines, and that regulating the firearms is within federal authority.

Dave Workman, senior editor of Gun Week, which is owned by the Second Amendment Foundation that is party to the Montana lawsuit, says the law was designed to force the interstate commerce argument into the courts. He describes the Firearms Freedom Act as more of a “movement” than simple legislation. “The underlying motive is really the states kind of flexing their muscle at the federal government,” Workman says. “It’s kind of a shot across the bow of Congress.”

This story was reported by Jake Grovum for the Pew Charitable Trusts.

On April 15, the Institute for Justice (IJ) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two volunteer groups challenging part of Washington State’s grassroots lobbying disclosure law as a violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and petition. In Many Cultures, One Message v. Clements, the groups claim that having to register as grassroots lobbying organizations is burdensome, and revealing information about their financial supporters could leave donors open to threats from opponents.

The groups challenging the law are Many Cultures, One Message, which opposes the use of eminent domain for redevelopment in southeast Seattle, and Conservative Enthusiasts, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit volunteer organization that promotes small government and opposes taxes. According to IJ, “Each face the dilemma of registering with the government or halting their efforts to urge their fellow Washingtonians into political action.”

The defendants in the lawsuit are Jim Clements, chairman of the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, and several other members of the commission. The commission enforces disclosure and campaign finance laws.

Grassroots lobbying activities seek to encourage the public to take specific positions on legislative matters or public policies and typically feature forms of communication that request the recipients to contact their lawmakers regarding a specific issue. These communications are directed at the general public or at selected groups on organization mailing lists. Currently, federal law does not require the registration of people or groups that solely engage in grassroots lobbying, nor does it require disclosure of such activities.

The State of Washington is one of 36 states that have some sort of law addressing disclosure of grassroots lobbying. [According to the IJ report, "Mowing Down the Grassroots," those include Western states: Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming. See the embedded report above. - WC]

In Washington, the law requires that any person or entity that spends more than $500 in one month or $1,000 in three months making grassroots lobbying expenditures must file with the state’s Public Disclosure Commission and disclose his or her/its name, address, business, and occupation. The law also requires disclosure of the names and addresses of anyone or any group such a person or entity is working with, as well as anyone who contributes more than $25 to the group’s grassroots lobbying efforts.

Many Cultures, One Message and Conservative Enthusiasts sought an exemption from the law in December 2009. In March 2010, the Public Disclosure Commission ruled that the groups would still have to file disclosure reports as grassroots lobbying organizations if they made expenditures exceeding the amounts specified in the law. The commission’s response letter to IJ stated, “These statutes enable the voters to ‘follow the money’ in lobbying and campaigns, including grassroots lobbying.” The letter asserted that the citizens of Washington State passed the law by initiative in 1972 to “maintain openness and transparency in lobbying and financial efforts to affect legislation.”

The groups’ lawsuit claims that the state law creates “expensive, complex, and time-consuming administrative requirements that interfere with, and chill Plaintiffs’ ability to exercise, their right to engage in political speech and association.” In addition, the registration and reporting rules are vague, and prohibit them from “exercising their right to engage in anonymous political speech,” according to the suit. They further argue that grassroots lobbying disclosure laws and the cost for violating them may discourage small groups from becoming active in politics and public policy. In Washington State, the maximum penalty is $10,000 per violation.

An IJ press release on the case announced, “Washingtonians from both sides of the political spectrum filed a lawsuit today [April 15] to stop their state from monitoring, collecting and publicly disseminating information about the political activities of private citizens who do nothing more than urge their fellow citizens to take political action.”

IJ’s lawsuit cites the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission as support for the finding that onerous rules can amount to a ban on speech. The Associated Press quoted IJ executive director Bill Maurer as being “encouraged” with the Court’s “less regulatory direction regarding campaign finance laws.” However, in Citizens United, disclosure laws were upheld as constitutional, and the decision stated that “transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

The lawsuit also reveals the groups’ concern with the state gathering personal information and making it available on the Internet, which they charge may leave donors and others vulnerable to harassment. A case that will soon face the U.S. Supreme Court addresses similar issues.

In John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, petition signers challenged the constitutionality of Washington’s Public Records Act, which requires state and local governments to make public the identities of those who sign a referendum or initiative petition. Those challenging the law argue that petition signing is political speech subject to First Amendment protections, while Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed asserts that signing a referendum or initiative petition is a legislative act and that petitions to add measures to the ballot are public records. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that disclosure of such signatures serves an important government interest and promotes government accountability.

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report notes that grassroots lobbying disclosure regulations have been deemed constitutional in the past. A 2008 report points out that the “Supreme Court of the State of Washington in 1974, for example, upheld very detailed lobbying disclosure provisions of State law concerning ‘grassroots’ lobbying activities in Young Americans for Freedom, Inc. v. Gorton.” In that case, the court held, “To strike down this portion of the initiative would leave a loophole for indirect lobbying without allowing or providing the public with information and knowledge re the sponsorship of the lobbying and its financial magnitude.”

A further suggestion in the CRS report hypothesizes that a law that only requires disclosure and reporting, only covers paid grassroots lobbying, and does not prohibit any activity, would stand up against court challenges. Such a law would exclude “volunteer organizations, volunteers, and individuals who engage in such activities on their own accord out of the coverage and sweep of the provisions.” The law would have to be “drafted in such a manner so as not to be susceptible to an overly broad sweep bringing in groups, organizations and other citizens who do no more than advocate, analyze and discuss public policy issues and/or legislation.”

While campaign finance laws may have dampened some of the political world’s Super Bowl frolicking, at least four lawmakers are going to the Super Bowl and most of them are apparently using the event to host fundraisers, where they can collect campaign contributions and party with lobbyists and big donors over mojitos or martinis.

We’re qualifying this information with the word “apparently” because we learned from our Super Bowl Blitz that politicians don’t like to talk about their Super Bowl plans. ProPublica and more than 15 news organizations, local reporters, and a bunch of die-hard constituents contacted almost three-quarters of Congress and got answers from at least half of Congress in little more than a week. We and our readers asked two simple questions: Did you go to the Super Bowl last year? Are you going this year?

After repeated calls from our volunteers and our reporters, we confirmed that Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Reps. Mike Pence, R-Ind., Steve Scalise R-La., whose teams are in the game, are going, as is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., whose team is not. Getting their offices to confirm news reports about the fundraisers several of them are said to be holding was another matter altogether. Although politicians are renowned attention-seekers, with press operations that publicize just about everything they do, their spokespeople disappeared from the radar scope when our questions shifted to parties for lobbyists and big donors.

Other members may also be heading to the game. Rep. Greg Meeks, D-N.Y., went last year but his staff was “unsure” about this year and hasn’t returned our recent phone calls. Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., a current Senate candidate in whose district the game is being played, “very likely will be going,” according to his press secretary. Current Florida Sen. George LeMieux’s office said several days ago that he had “not decided,” and nobody has not returned our subsequent calls.

So, what’s next? The Super Bowl Blitz was the first of a two-part effort to figure out which members of Congress are going to the Super Bowl and how they got their tickets. Reporters Marcus Stern and Sebastian Jones are flying to Miami today, where they’ll try to see which lobbyists and big donors are rubbing shoulders with the lawmakers at those fundraisers. We’ll let you know what they find on Monday.

Just in case a member of Congress slipped through our survey’s cracks, (we’re still waiting to hear back from about 100 of them) we’ve taken a page out of Deadspin’s playbook. We’re asking readers attending the Super Bowl to be on the lookout for members of Congress and other VIP public officials. If you get one in your sights, snap a pic and send it to us — along with details on where and when the pic was taken and your contact info (in case we need to follow up with you). The wider the shot, the better.

Now, that’s the big project update. Some of you have asked us to discuss other (amusing and interesting) findings of our reader-powered Super Bowl Blitz.

Much to our dismay, several congressional offices refused to answer our volunteers’ questions, saying that office policy forbids participation in “surveys.” Included in this list are Reps. Jane Harman, D-Calif., Baron P. Hill, D-Ind., and Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. Other offices—like those of Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.—said they don’t disclose information about the congressperson’s (personal) schedule.

Like many federal agencies contemplating reform these days, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission is hearing a lot from the industry it regulates.

But executives and lobbyists don’t always have to knock on the commission’s door. Some are already inside.

They belong to the Global Markets Advisory Committee, which was set up by the CFTC to provide it with private-sector expertise. All of the committee’s 19 members are representatives of financial exchanges, investment banks or other industry groups — an imbalance that is coming under fire from a key senator, farm and consumer organizations, and businesses such as airlines that are sensitive to commodity prices.

The committee, which operates below the general public’s radar, is one of hundreds of similar advisory panels throughout government. It is emblematic of the way industry players or technical experts with a vested interest in agency decisions can gain unfettered access to regulators and a platform to advance arguments in Congress.

A 1972 federal law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, requires advisory committees to be “fairly balanced.”

The global markets committee has the ear of decision-makers at the CFTC, a government agency long viewed as permissive and now at the crux of a crackdown on the obscure world of privately traded derivatives. Those often-speculative insurance contracts wreaked havoc on the ailing financial system.

When the advising group gathers in December it will focus on derivatives reform. The meeting comes as CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler tries to impose oversight on trillions of dollars in bets on future prices of commodities such as oil and wheat, as well as more exotic mortgage debts. Advancing bills in Congress would impose more capital requirements on derivative dealers and move some trades onto open exchanges.

Such efforts don’t appear to mesh with one of the advisory committee’s formal purposes, described in its 2009 annual report, as “avoiding unnecessary regulatory and operational impediments to conducting global business.”

Jill E. Sommers, one of the CFTC’s five commissioners, chairs the advisory committee and chooses its members. A former industry lobbyist herself, Sommers is a Republican recently reappointed by President Obama.

Big banks and investment houses are using the committee “to protect their profits and their dark market activity. They want to have carte blanche — and they look at Jill Sommers as an ally,” said Jim Collura, a lobbyist for the New England Fuel Institute, one of the groups that has complained to Sommers about being excluded from the process.

Sommers did not reply to requests for comment.

Twelve ex-staffers of Montana Sen. Max Baucus now work as lobbyists with direct interest in the Senate climate bill. Guess who’s Mr. Popular?

Last week we mused about Baucus’ lone committee vote against the Senate Democrats climate change bill that would exempt agribusiness from any accountability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Was Max just being mavericky Max?

The Sunlight Foundation notes there may be a much more cynical tale to be told about that vote and future ones as Senate Finance chair:

Baucus will likely have a lot of input coming in from outside his office as twelve of his former staffers, including four former chiefs of staff, work as lobbyists for organizations with an explicit interest in climate legislation.

These twelve lobbyists represent a large cross-section of industries, from airlines to railroads and oil producers to solar energy companies. The diversity of organizations also brings a diversity in positions on the underlying climate bill. Many of the organizations represented by former staffers of Baucus are generally supportive of a climate bill, but are seeking certain provisions to be included or not removed during the committee process. Others are engaged in outward opposition.

Read the rest of the story and check out the relationship map embedded below: The Max Baucus Energy & Climate Lobbyist Complex

Source: McKinsey Global Survey [free registration required].

Among the more interesting findings in the survey is what corporate executives think is top of mind for the public. Does this square with your point of view?

Companies’ political influence is far from the only issue where executives see growing public concern (Exhibit 4). The environment is a perennial leader among issues expected to attract the most public attention, and 52 percent of respondents say the public’s attention toward the environment has increased because of the crisis. However, even more see growth in concern over other top issues: 94 percent see more concern about executive compensation, and 78 percent see more concern about corporate involvement in politics.

Indeed, among issues expected to attract the most public attention, executive compensation, which has markedly decreased the public’s trust in business, surged to the number two spot, from number eight in 2007 and 2008. And although the environment continues to hold the top position, of the executives who select this issue, the proportion has fallen to 49 percent, from 57 percent in the 2008 survey.