[EL] Ban on contributions by developers

[Terry Martin]

I am aware of the Tenessee Republican Party's recent litigation against the
SEC that challenged a P2P rule for municipal bond advisors, but it was
kicked on standing, and I think there was a prior case that was kicked on
filing in the wrong court. The easier it is to show a direct connection
between elected officials and the regulated community, and not just
speculation about their level of political influence, the better chance the
regulation has to survive. (See *Blount v. SEC*)

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 1:59 PM Flavio Komuves <fkomuves at zazzali-law.com>
wrote:

> In NJ, we have a number of municipalities that have adopted P2P ordinances
> for redevelopers (as distinct from developers).  Often, redevelopment (as
> distinct from development) is associated with the granting of property tax
> exemptions and other financial benefits.  Although dated, this is an
> article giving an overview of them:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/newark_council_members_conside.html
>
>
>
> Here is a more recent one:  https://ecode360.com/15244976
>
>
>
> I am unaware of any successful challenges to these ordinances.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Fredric Woocher [mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2019 3:17 PM
> *To:* ben.sheffner at gmail.com; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Ban on contributions by developers
>
>
>
> So, the case I was thinking about is *Harwin v. Goleta Water District*
> (9th Cir. 1991) 953 F.2d 488, and it’s a bit different than I had
> remembered it (naturally).  The ordinance at issue there required a board
> member to disqualify herself from considering a water service application
> if she had received a $250 campaign contribution from the applicant.  It
> did not ban the contribution itself.
>
>
>
> Fredric D. Woocher
>
> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
>
> 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90024
>
> fwoocher at strumwooch.com
>
> (310) 576-1233
>
> *From:* Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf Of *
> ben.sheffner at gmail.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2019 10:46 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] Ban on contributions by developers
>
>
>
> The Los Angeles City Council is considering imposing a ban on
> contributions to candidates for city office by real estate developers. Is
> anyone aware of similar regulations, and challenges to them?
>
>
>
> Here's a description of the proposal from the LA Times:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-developer-donations-20190115-story.html
>
> Under the proposal, real estate developers would be barred from giving to
> city candidates and officeholders once they have turned in an application
> that requires city approval or other action, provided that the request
> involves building or adding more than 4,000 square feet of floor area for
> residential projects or 15,000 square feet for commercial projects.
>
> The donation ban would last until a year after a final decision is made on
> the application, the proposal said. The restrictions would apply to the
> owner of the property being developed, including principals of any legal
> entity that owns the property.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190118/92dc91c2/attachment.html>