Archive for November, 2011

Election and PAC Roles in Advocacy Efforts

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011 by Brittany

Election Activities

What is it?

In some cases, it may be appropriate to engage members of the advocacy network in election-related activities.  Note, however, the restrictions on election-related activity discussed in Chapter 2.  Nonprofits organized under certain IRS “501” designations, in particular, may not engage in partisan election activity, such as endorsing a particular candidate for office.  Individual states and localities may also have restrictions of which advocate leaders should be aware.

Why is it useful?

Engaging advocates in election-related activities serves a number of purposes, including:

  • Raising the profile of an organization’s issue, both during the campaign and long after
  • Offering a new and often invigorating way for advocates to get involved in the policymaking process
  • Enhancing an organization’s access and reach in the legislature 

When should it be used?

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are up for election every two years and U.S. Senators must stand for election every six.  In addition, most states and localities have elections for various state and local offices at least every other year.  Some localities have elections every year for both candidates as well as to address ballot questions, such as sales tax or funding initiatives.  Any election offers an opportunity to engage advocates, to the extent allowed by law.  Advocate leaders should consider, though, which level of government the organization hopes to build relationships with and choose the election cycle for participation carefully.

PAC / Fundraising Efforts

What is it?

As noted in Chapter 1, advocacy efforts should be coordinated in tandem with other government relations activities, include political action committees (PACs).  In fact, organizations will generally find a great deal of overlap between the most active and committed members of their advocacy network and the most consistent donors to their political action committees.  This section provides a few details on PACs and how they can be successfully integrated into an overall advocacy network plan.

Organizations form Generic Cialis PACs to finance political education and to make contributions toward the election or defeat of candidates.  They can contribute up to $5,000 per cycle per election to a candidate’s committee and $15,000 to national political parties.  They may receive up to $5,000 from individuals. 

Most organizations will establish a connected PAC that can solicit contributions only from members.  More information can be found on the FEC site at www.fec.gov.  Key materials on this site include:

Political action committees can also be formed at the state level.  Rules for establishing state PACs vary from state to state.  Organizations should look to their state’s Board of Elections for more information.

Why is it useful?

Overall, political action committees allow organizations to support the election of candidates who support their issues.  Some advocate leaders suggest that PAC contributions give advocates and government relations staff better access to policymakers, in that advocates will have the opportunity to attend fundraising events and be seen as supportive of the candidate.  

Political action committees can also enhance an organization’s advocacy activities and vice versa.  By coordinating existing programs or forming a new PAC to complement an advocacy network, organizations can reduce duplication, reach out in a more focused, targeted manner to politically active network members and possibly reduce overhead and cost.

When should it be used?

Any organization that already has a PAC should look for opportunities to, at a minimum, coordinate and possibly merge activities.  Organizations with advocacy networks but no PAC should determine whether a PAC would assist in meeting legislative and policy goals.

For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.

Abramoff tells ’60 Minutes’ “Nothing has changed.”

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011 by Vbhotla

Jack Abramoff sat down with 60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl in a segment called “The Lobbyist’s Playbook,” and had a lot of criticism about the current political system, saying nothing has changed to improve ethics since he worked on K Street, despite HLOGA and other reforms enacted largely in response to the scandal that erupted around him.

Early in the interview, Abramoff responded to an astounded Stahl, who inquired whether his actions were legal, “We would certainly try to make the activity legal if we could.  At times, we didn’t care.”  He went on to tell her that the problem with our system is that “our system is flawed and has to be fixed. Human beings populate our system. Human beings are weak.”

Abramoff suggested that one way to improve ethics is to close the revolving door between K Street and Capitol Hill.  “If you make the choice to serve the public, public service, then Buy Cialis serve the public, not yourself. When you’re done, go home. Washington’s a dangerous place. Don’t hang around.”  He explained how the revolving door benefited him as a lobbyist trying to wield influence over congressional offices:

“When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, ‘You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.’ Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ’em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do.”

Study finds companies are independently limiting political spending

Friday, November 4th, 2011 by Vbhotla

The L.A. Times reported last week on a study that suggests that in this post-Citizens United world, companies are regulating their own spending in political campaigns.  The study, conducted by the Center for Political Accountability and the University of Pennsylvania’s Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research, evaluated companies based on board oversight of political giving, disclosure practices and company restrictions on political spending.

The study found that “voluntary disclosure of political spending is becoming a mainstream corporate practice, and [a] growing number of companies are putting restrictions on the political use of their money.”  According to its research, 57 of the S&P 100 index companies voluntarily disclose their political spending and have adopted board oversight over spending.  Just under half, 43, of the companies voluntarily disclose some of their independent spending through associations and nonprofits.

One in six do not allow funds to be spent directly on candidates or political committees.  It also found two companies, Colgate-Palmolive and  IBM, prohibit spending entirely.  Nearly one-third (30) of companies “place some Levitra prohibitions on using corporate funds for political activity.”

“Our findings are striking. They offer hope for increasing corporate political transparency and accountability at a time when everyone expects massive hidden spending to influence elections,” CPA President Bruce Freed said in a statement.

Twenty-four of the companies have explicit statements on their websites letting Super PAC committees know that they will not spend on independent expenditures.  The study ranked the top-ten companies based on political transparency:

  1. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
  2. Exelon Corp.
  3. International Business Machines
  4. Merck & Co. Inc.
  5. Johnson & Johnson
  6. Pfizer Inc.
  7. United Parcel Service Inc.
  8. Dell Inc.
  9. Wells Fargo & Co.
  10. EMC Corp.

In 2003, the Center for Political Accountability started a campaign to urge corporations to voluntarily disclose political spending and exercise greater oversight in this area.  “Few, if any, companies disclosed their political spending then,” the report says, going on to note that the results of this study “[reflect] significant progress. [They] also [reflect] troubling gaps that leave many shareholders, and citizens, in the dark.”

Hiring People off the Hill

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011 by Brittany

Lobbying registrants may seek to hire someone off the Hill with the connections and knowledge of particular issues to work with clients. However, depending on who the organization hires, there may be post-employment restrictions in play that may limit the amount of activity in which the former Hill employee may be involved.

Summary of House Post-Employment Restrictions

House Member

  • May not lobby any Member, officer or employee of either house of Congress for one year 
  • May not assist any foreign government seeking official action from any official of the United States for one year
  • Must file Notice of Negotiations with House Clerk if negotiating with a private entity
  • Must file Notice of Negotiations and Notice of Recusal with House Ethics Committee if negotiating with a private entity

Elected Officer

  • May not lobby any Member, officer or employee of either house of Congress for one year
  • May not assist any foreign government seeking official action from any official of the United States for one year
  • Must file Notice of Negotiations and Notice of Recusal with House Ethics Committee if negotiating with a private entity

Very Senior Staff

  • May not lobby Member or employee of former personal office, leadership office or committee, whichever is applicable, for one year
  • May not assist any foreign government seeking official action from any official of the United States for one year
  • Must file Notice of Negotiations and Notice of Recusal with House Ethics Committee if negotiating with a private entity

Non-senior Staff

  • No “cooling off” period Levitra; may lobby after leaving the Hill
  • Not required to file anything with House Ethics Committee or House Clerk

Summary of Senate Post-Employment Restrictions

Senators

  • May not lobby any Member, officer or employee of either house of Congress for two years
  • May not assist any foreign government seeking official action from any official of the United States for two years
  • Must file Notice of Negotiations with the Secretary of the Senate

Elected Officers

  • May not lobby any Member, officer or employee of the Senate for one year
  • May not assist any foreign government seeking official action from any official of the United States for one year
  • Must file Notice of Employment of Negotiations and Recusal with the Senate Ethics Committee

Senior Staff

  • May not lobby any Senator or any Senate employee for one year
  • May not assist any foreign government seeking official action from any official of the United States for one year
  • Must file Notice of Employment Negotiations and Recusal with the Senate Ethics Committee

Non-senior Staff

  • May not lobby former employing Senator for one year
  • May not lobby former employing office employees or the employing committee Members/staff for one year
  • If dual responsibilities during Senate employment (personal office and committee), may not lobby personal office or committee for one year
  • May not assist any foreign government seeking official action from any official of the United States for one year
  • No filing requirement to any Senate office

 

For more information or to purchase the Lobbying Compliance Handbook click here.

Senators Propose Constitutional Amendment to Reverse Citizens United

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011 by Vbhotla

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) has proposed a constitutional amendment to change the campaign finance landscape yet again, by “effectively revers[ing] two landmark Supreme Court decisions — the 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which said spending money in elections is a form of speech, and the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the money spent to influence elections by corporations and unions.

The amendment would allow Congress and the states to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures, by allowing Congress to regulate the amount of money raised and spent for federal campaigns (including independent expenditures), allowing states to regulate fundraising and spending at in state elections, and opening the door for Congress to pass unspecified campaign finance reform legislation in the future.

“Letting this go unchecked is a threat to our democracy. Campaigns should be about the best ideas, not the biggest checkbooks,” Udall said at a press conference.

Huffington Post reports, “Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the proposed amendment, called the Buckley case ‘one of the worst decisions that the Supreme Court has rendered in the last hundred years’ and described the Citizens United ruling as ‘Buckley on steroids.'”

A reversal of the Citizens United decision has been one of the demands of Occupy Wall Street protesters.  “The extent to which money and corporations have taken over the [campaign] process is reflected across our cities in the Occupy movement,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) says. “It is something we have to do something about if we are going to reclaim American democracy as the shining light to other countries that it has always been.”  Sen. Whitehouse is also co-sponsoring the amendment.