Compliance Notes - Vol. 7, Issue 7

RECENT LOBBYING, ETHICS & CAMPAIGN FINANCE UPDATES

Campaign Finance & Lobbying Compliance

Colorado: A federal judge upheld Colorado’s individual campaign contribution limits as constitutional on March 26, 2026, ruling that three Republican plaintiffs failed to show the state’s campaign finance framework violates the First Amendment. U.S. District Court Senior Judge John L. Kane found that Colorado voters legitimately enacted the limits to guard against quid pro quo corruption, and that the caps do not prevent challengers from mounting successful campaigns. The lawsuit, filed more than four years ago by now-Sen. Rod Pelton, former state Republican Party chair Steve House and gubernatorial candidate Greg Lopez challenged Article 28, a state constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2002. The disputed provisions cap individual contributions to statewide candidates at $1,450 per cycle and legislative candidates at $450, with doubled limits available to candidates who voluntarily restrict total campaign spending. Kane acknowledged the caps are among the lowest in the country and expressed concern that the inflation adjustment mechanism has produced little to no increase for legislative candidates since 2002, but concluded the limits remain within a constitutionally acceptable range. (Michael Karlik, Colorado Politics)

Missouri: A Missouri Senate committee held a hearing on March 30, 2026 on a bill that would restrict the use of automatically-recurring political donations, a fundraising tactic that drew scrutiny after it was used by former state Sen. Bill Eigel’s campaigns. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Jim Murphy (R-St. Louis County), passed the Missouri House in February 2026 by a 134-16 vote. It has three main provisions: 1) requiring donations to be one-time unless a donor affirmatively opts into recurring contributions, 2) ending all recurring contributions when an election concludes and 3) requiring solicitations to disclose the candidate or PAC receiving funds and whether a donation processing service is taking a share. The bill was prompted by a November 2025 report showing Eigel, now running for St. Charles County executive, had received recurring donations from out-of-state donors originally solicited for his failed 2024 gubernatorial campaign, including a Korean War veteran from Nebraska who made 35 donations totaling $1,050 without intending to do so. Eigel has argued that the bill targets him personally rather than advancing sound policy. A Senate vote is expected soon. (Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent)

Government Ethics & Transparency

The U.S. House Ethics Committee found “clear and convincing evidence” that Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) committed ethics violations, following a public hearing. A bipartisan adjudicatory subcommittee, after a two-year investigation that reviewed more than 33,000 documents and conducted 28 witness interviews, found 25 of 27 alleged violations proven, including improper receipt of funds and commingling of personal and campaign funds. The violations stem from federal allegations that Cherfilus-McCormick funneled approximately $5 million in FEMA overpayments distributed to her family’s company, Trinity Healthcare Services, to support her 2021 special election campaign. She was indicted in November 2025, pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. Her criminal trial is expected to begin in April 2026. The committee will recommend a punishment in April 2026 for a vote by the full House, with options ranging from censure and removal from committees to expulsion, which requires a two-thirds vote. Some Republicans have already called for expulsion and at least one Democrat has called for her resignation. (Barbara Sprunt, NPR)

Ballot Measures & Elections

Texas: A federal judge in Tyler, Texas, dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday, April 7, 2026 that sought to let churches endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status. The case challenged the Johnson Amendment, a provision of the U.S. tax code since 1954 that bars nonprofits from supporting political candidates. The Trump administration had sided with the plaintiff churches and agreed to a consent judgment under which the IRS would not enforce the Johnson Amendment against them. District Judge Cam Barker, a Trump appointee, ruled he lacked authority to approve the proposed arrangement, citing federal statutes that bar courts from enjoining tax collection before taxes are assessed. Barker noted that challengers must typically pay the disputed taxes first and then sue for a refund and that this requirement applied regardless of both parties’ agreement. The ruling leaves the Johnson Amendment intact but does not foreclose future challenges through other procedural avenues. (Eleanor Klibanoff, The Texas Tribune)

We read the news, cut through the noise and provide you the notes.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.