ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJAKALAMANAOAPAQARASATAUAVAW
1
Limits Index: Average of State Integrity Investigation indicators 14-25
2
StateLimits Index scoreRelative Performance in 2015 SIIChange Since 2015?What Changed?Description of ChangeLink
3
Alabama23→Nothing
4
Alaska83→Nothing
5
Arizona56↘SB 1516 is a sweeping campaign finance bill that INCREASES the amount of "dark money" allowed in AZ elections: it removes the financial limit on that an individual can spend on a party thrown for a candidate; it allows candidates to transfer unlimited money amongst themselves; and it repeals all criminal provisions in the campaign finance law (though the sponsor promises to add these provisions back next year). It also renames "Super PACs" and "Mega PACs." The bill maintains current contribution limits.The limit will increase by $100 every other year.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/2r/summary/h.sb1516_04-04-16_astransmittedtogovernor.pdf
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2016/03/31/campaign-finance-overhaul-could-go-to-voters/
6
Arkansas38→Nothing
7
California50↗SB 254; AB 1544SB 254 will place a measure on the November 2016 general election ballot that would call on California to ratify an amendment to the U.S. constitution overturning Citizen's United.

AB 1544 modifies language surrounding behested payments. In California, payments made at the behest of candidates for office are considered campaign contributions. (For example, if a state officer asks a company to pay for airfare for people testifying at a hearing). This bill clarifies that a payment made by a federal, state or local government agency for a legislative or governmental purpose is not a campaign contribution and thus isn't subject to behested payment reporting laws.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB254
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1544
file:///C:/Users/aadel/AppData/Local/Temp/201520160AB1544_Senate%20Floor%20Analyses.pdf
8
Colorado60→


9
Connecticut69↘HB 5612 CT law prohibits incumbents from using public funds in campaigns for office. HB 5612 creates an exemption stating that candidate activity with the Council of State Governments does not violate this prohibition.
https://legiscan.com/CT/text/HB05612/2016
10
Delaware60→Nothing
11
Florida40→Nothing
12
Georgia42→Nothing
13
Hawaii58→Nothing
14
Idaho56→Nothing
15
Illinois69→Nothing
16
Indiana23→Nothing
17
Iowa31→Nothing
18
Kansas73→Nothing
19
Kentucky90↘Lawsuit & regulatory change3/31/16: A federal judge ruled that Kentucky's ban on political contributions from corporations was unconstitutional because the state did not ban contributions from labor unions, thus violating the equal protection clause. In response, in April, the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance retained the ban on corporate contributions but also banned unions from donating. But it also began allowing corporations to create political action committees and pay their administrative expenses from corporate cash.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/31/judge-issues-temporary-injunction-in-campaign-fina/

http://www.dinsmore.com/ky-court-nullifies-ban-on-corporate-contributions-to-political-campaigns-04-28-2016/
20
Louisiana58→Nothing
21
Maine48→Nothing

22
Maryland52↗HB 241; HB 963HB 241 modifies current law to change how the State Board of Elections can penalize officials who violate a provision that bans fundraising during the General Assembly session: the SBE may impose a civil fine of $1,000 (in addition to the amount of the donation) instead of taking a civil action in court. The SBE can reduce the fine based on the severity of the violation and the intent of the donor.

HB 963 updates existing law to require that political groups created to support or defeat ballot measures be subject to state campaign finance law.
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/fnotes/bil_0001/hb0241.pdf
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/fnotes/bil_0003/hb0963.pdf
23
Massachusetts85→Nothing
24
Michigan44↘SB 571SB 571 doubles the maximum PAC donation from $68,000 to $136,000 for statewide campaigns. This provision was added in a last-minute amendment that many legislators who voted for the bill were not even aware of, according to the Detroit Free Press. (See subsection 12 of the bill text -- the $68,000 limit doesn't apply to PAC expenditures for state wide races that are "part of 1 or more bundled contributions.")
Bill text:http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/publicact/pdf/2015-PA-0269.pdf
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2015-SFA-0571-N.pdf
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/brian-dickerson/2016/01/07/campaign-finance-surprise/78361616/
25
Minnesota63→Nothing
26
Mississippi15→Nothing
27
Missouri13→Nothing
28
Montana60→Nothing
billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/montana-republicans-call-for-special-session-on-campaign-finance/article_1bb5a88c-d139-5348-923e-1703a279ace4.html
29
Nebraska15→Nothing
30
Nevada42→Nothing
31
New Hampshire46→Nothing
32
New Jersey69→Nothing
33
New Mexico46→Nothing
34
New York58↗Opinion from Governor's Legal CounselGovernor Andrew Cuomo's Legal Counsel issued the two page memo to enforcement agencies as part of Cuomo's last minute attempt to get movement on campaign finance reform before the end of this legislative session. The memo seeks to reinforce current law to curb violations by clarifying when candidates and independent groups cannot coordinate. Cuomo also pledged to introduce legislation to this effect before the session ended, but that bill (SB 6411) never saw any activity. Given that Cuomo announced that he would push for reform in January, but did not release this opinion until June, activicts questioned his level of devotion to this issue.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/201606081128.pdf
35
North Carolina67↘HB 373; Sweepstakes CaseHB 373 allows the party caucuses in the North Carolina legislature to set up affiliated party committees to advocate for the re-election of their members. These committees are subject to the same rules as political parties, meaning they can take contributions from lobbyists and corporations ("if the funds are segregated") with no limit.

7/15/15: a state investigation found that $270,000 in donations from Chase Burns (an Oklahoma man who made a fortune from his sweepstakes company) didn't violate the law against corporate contributions because the money came from Burns' personal bank account. But given that the money in that account was transferred from Burns' corporate account, activists criticized the ruling.
Bill summary / analysis:
http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/Dashboard/Chamber/Services/BillSummary.aspx?sSessionCode=2015&sBarcode=H373-SMST-148(sl)

Bill text: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2015/Bills/House/HTML/H373v5.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/15/nc-elections-board-set-to-discuss-sweepstakes-dono/
36
North Dakota15→Nothing
37
Ohio56→Nothing

38
Oklahoma75→Nothing
39
Oregon10→Nothing
40
Pennsylvania13↘AG used campaign funds to pay legal defense for criminal charges2/12/16: Attorney General Kathleen Kane used nearly $300,000 in campaign funds in 2015 to pay public relations and legal fees when she was accused of leaking grand jury information. The law is "vague" on whether this use of campaign funds is legal.
http://articles.philly.com/2016-02-04/news/70317177_1_christopher-kane-campaign-fund-campaign-money
41
Rhode Island77→Nothing
42
South Carolina38
→		Nothing
43
South Dakota31↗HB 1099HB 1099 makes a change to current law clarifying that counties/towns/districts/municipalities that are not covered by state campaign finance law can apply those laws to county and municipal elections.
http://sdlegislature.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx?File=HB1099P.htm&Session=2016
44
Tennessee56→Contribution limits increased - but based on existing law the limit is chained to CPI The 2015/2016 contribution limits (posted to the Bureau of Ethics/Campaign finance website in Sept. 2015) increased over the 2013/2014 limits
http://tn.gov/assets/entities/tref/attachments/Campaign_Finance_Limit_Changes_for_2015_and_2016.pdf
45
Texas19→Nothing
46
Utah19↗HB 95; HB 290HB 95 expands the definition of a group that does NOT qualify as a political issues committee to include groups that were created to support 1 single issue/ballot measure/action (previously the law only stated that groups created to *oppose* a single issue were exempt).

HB 158 restricts candidates/officials from local school boards and county offices from spending money in campaign-related bank accounts for personal use.


https://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/hbillenr/HB0095.pdf
http://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/hbillenr/HB0158.pdf

47
Vermont96→Nothing
48
Virginia13→Nothing
49
Washington60→Nothing
50
West Virginia60→Nothing
51
Wisconsin38↘AB 387AB 387 repeals and replaces pre-existing campaign finance law. It creates an "event based" reporting structure for express advocacy made within 60 days of the election, which is in addition to an ongoing reporting structure. It restricts corporations, labor unions, and tribes from donating to PACs, but allows them to donate to legislative campaign committees ($12,000), political parties ($12,000), and independent expenditure committees (IECs) (unlimited). It raises the threshold for when certain committees are required to register with the state. It generally increases contribution limits, often doubling them. (For example, individual contribution limits to gubernatorial campaigns had been $10,000 - now it's $20,000).
Old contribution limits: http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=18185

State analysis of the bill: http://www.gab.wi.gov/node/37814

Legislative analysis:
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2016/im_2016_01.pdf

Bill text: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/proposals/ab387
52
Wyoming33→Nothing
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100