Every 10 minutes a lobbyist enters into a new relationship with a client … or has an existing relationship terminated.
Now, the all-new Lobbying Terminations Report gives you quick access to the full list of recent lobbying terminations by issue. Choose the three legislative issues you’d like a terminations list for and we’ll create a custom report just for you!
Each report includes a list terminations by:
Firm and client lobbying relationships
Date of termination
This is the perfect tool for business developement in the lobbying world and the report is customized specifically to your interests!
Once you place your order, an editor will contact you to get the list of issues you’d like researched for your custom lobbying terminations report. Order yours today!
Sarah Palin this week launched Sarah Pac‘s new website, an indication that she may be seriously considering a run for the GOP candidacy for president in 2012. While the former vice presidential candidate does have quite a following, she does not have one key thing she needs to begin organizing for a 2012 election: contact info for these supporters. The page also serves as a landing ground for would-be donors to contribute to Sarah Palin’s campaign efforts, stating that Sarah PAC can accept up to $5,000 annually from individuals. According to FEC guidance, this is still considered a solicitation, despite the fact that the PAC is not directly asking for contributions.
The bundling rules for lobbyist contributions to PACs (including leadership PACs, of which Sarah PAC is one) state that the PAC must reveal the name of lobbyists who bundle two or more contributions totaling more than $16,000 during a reporting period. While it does not impose any specific obligation on the lobbyist, it is important to note that the PACs may expect lobbyists who bundle contributions to cooperate with their efforts to report contributions.
Forwarded contributions are defined as any contribution delivered physically or electronically to the candidate by the lobbyist (or non-lobbyist employee of a registered lobbying entity). Credited contributions are less concrete, and presuppose that committees know who is raising funds for the committee. Contributions must be credited and received by the campaign committee to be subject to disclosure. Written records, designated titles, event invitations, and mementos can all determine “credit,” and they do not have to be documented to be applied.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a former mayor who was, when he was elected in 1077 at the age of 31 to lead Cleveland, the youngest person ever elected to lead a major city, is now in his 8th Congressional term. In addition to Viagra his service on the Education and Workforce Committee and the Subcommittees on Health Employment Labor and Pensions, Workforce Protections, and Regulatory Affairs Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending, and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Kucinich is also, as it turns out, a ventriloquist.
It’s a great time of year: the NBA and NHL are both officially in playoff season! And while Washington basketball aficionados may have little to cheer for (let’s be honest, Wizards fans are used to it), Caps fans can revel in the fact that despite the game one loss, the 2nd Seed Capitals may have a legitimate chance at the Stanley Cup (assuming they can get it together and make it out of the first round).
Previous Lobby Blog posts have portrayed certain members of Congress as big sports fans. But if you’re hoping to cozy up to hockey fans Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.)—who is often touted the biggest hockey fan in Congress, Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.), Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), Pat Meehan (D-Penn.), or basketball guys House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and Reps. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) and Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), you may want to re-visit the gift rules.
Except Braley, each of these Congressmen has a home state team in either the NBA Playoffs, the NHL Playoffs, or both (while Maryland doesn’t have a hockey team, the Caps’ broadcast ratings in Maryland, and the number of Maryland fans is high for the neighboring district team, so we’ll let Hoyer slide by claiming Caps fan constituency).
It is okay to give the following gifts to any of these Congressmen (or others) without fear of reproach:
A baseball cap with the logo of the Congressman’s favorite team – a baseball cap is considered of nominal value, and is therefore an acceptable gift. T-shirts are also acceptable, even if the actual value of the t-shirt or baseball cap exceeds $10, these items are considered “gifts under $10.”
“2011 Championship season” commemorative team books – books, publications, and software are permitted as long as they are sent to the Member’s office, do not require specialized reporting service, and are not sent for the Member’s unrestricted use. The Member should display the book in the office. These are not permissible under the home state exemption, unless the books are produced within the Member’s state (not likely).
Obviously, if there is a history of personal friendship around being lifelong Chicago Bulls fans, gifts are unrestricted under the personal friendship exemption, as long as the cost of the gift is not reimbursed by the employer.
We would steer clear of giving tickets to any games to Members or spouses, unless the personal friendship or Relative exemptions apply.
The April Young Lobbyist Network (YLN) happy hour will be at Vapiano in Penn Quarter from 5:30 – 7 pm on April 21st. This is a great opportunity to meet other young professionals working in government relations! Friends and new contacts are welcome Cialis Online. For more information on YLN visit our Facebook page or the American League of Lobbyists website at www.ALLDC.org.
MONTHLY NETWORKING EVENT Thursday, April 21 from 5:30 – 7:00 p.m.
623 H Street Northwest
Washington D.C. 20001
Closest Metro: Chinatown
There is much confusion in the government relations community about the differences between “advocacy” and “lobbying.” This is in part because the terms are used one way in the legal and tax context by the IRS (as applied to non-profit organizations) and another in the practical development of advocacy networks. Following is an overview of these differences:
2.2.1. Legal / Tax Differences
“Advocacy” is often seen as arguing for a cause without referring to a specific piece of legislation. This definition is important to any organization structured as a private foundation because they are, for all intents and purposes, restricted from direct lobbyingbut may undertake “policy education” or “advocacy.”
“Grassroots Lobbying” is defined by the I.R.S. more specifically as encompassing the activities that an organization undertakes to ask the public (not members) to support or oppose legislation.
“Lobbying” or “Direct Lobbying” is defined by the I.R.S. as encompassing the activities that an organization undertakes to communicate its position on legislative proposals directly to elected and executive branch officials and staff. This includes communications an organization sends to its own members asking them to communicate with an elected official about legislation.
Nonprofits are limited in both the amount of grassroots lobbying and direct lobbying they may carry out and still maintain their exempt status. The rather vague term “substantial” (as in whether an organization’s lobbying work constitutes a “substantial” part of its activities) has led many organizations to seek further clarification.
The 1976 Lobbying Law provided this clarification. Non-profits that elect to come under this law (by filing a Section 501 h form) have Tramadol Online very specific monetary limits on their lobbying-related expenditures, as follows:
1976 Lobbying Law Limits
Direct Lobbying Ceiling
Grassroots Lobbying Ceiling
Up to $500,000
20% of expenditures
25% of the direct lobbying costs
$500,001 to $1 million
$100,000 + 15% over $500K
$25,000 + 3.75% over $500K
$1 million to $1.5 million
$175,000 + 10% over $1million
$43,750 + 2.5% over $1 million
$1.5 million to $17 million
$225,000 + 5% over $1.5 million
$56,250 + 1.25% over $1.5 million
Over $17 million
Note that these limits are based on actual monetary expenditures. The advocacy activities of volunteers do not count toward these expenditures, although any funds the organization spends to solicit action would.
In Practice Definitions
Standard government relations practice defines these terms in slightly different ways. These are the definitions that will be utilized in this manual:
Advocacy: The act of pleading or arguing for a cause, or more specifically for or against a piece of legislation, through the use of grassroots, grasstops or coalition networks. These networks may be comprised of members of the organization itself or the general public.
Lobbying: Communications with elected officials and others conducted on behalf of an organization by professional staff or directors of the organization.
Note, however, that because the question of what constitutes lobbying (whether direct or grassroots) is so important to the functioning of nonprofit organizations, care is taken throughout this manual to highlight when an organization needs to be aware of the potential tax ramifications of a particular activity or advocacy network structure.
For more information or to purchase the Advocacy Handbook click here.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce joins the ranks of the many Federal employees this morning thrilled over the averted government shutdown. Chamber president Thomas Donohue said the shutdown would have been “a pain in the neck” and would have stalled the already-reeling economy.
Donohue and his colleagues remain concerned about discussions around the debt ceiling, which the chamber argues must be raised to prevent stalled recovery hgh legal substitute and promote further economic growth. Chamber officials are among the scores of lobbyists for whom business may have improved with news of the pending shutdown. The National Treasury Employees Union, for example, was busy trying to guarantee retroactive pay for any employees furloughed, and many other groups were busy pleading the case for funding, as budget slashing continued in the process to negotiate a continuing resolution.
President Obama will have the opportunity to significantly skew the FEC when, at the end of this month, five of the six FEC commissioners’ terms will expire, but there is speculation that these posts will not be easily filled.
At this time, there are no nominations before the Senate for either the three commissioners whose terms have already expired or the two whose terms end at the end of the month, much to the chagrin of campaign finance reform advocates. Â The FEC has still yet to write policies to enforce the rulings from last spring’sÂ Citizens United decision, which could significantly impact the re-election campaigns and fundraising efforts of congressional leadership and the president himself.
There was an interesting article on Al Jezeera this week blasting the US government as being a plutocracy. The author asserts that American democracy has been sold to the highest bidders. This is nothing new, but the interesting part is an email from a Capitol Hill staffer who was, apparently irritated by being swayed by outside interests (aka lobbyists).
Considering a surveyed, this assertion — and, in particular, the fact that the email is from a Hill aide — is ludicrous.
See the full text of the letter, as printed in Al Jazeera:
Perhaps the best line in the entire article was a quote from PBS commentator and former top LBJ aide Bill Moyers:
“Why isn’t government working for them? Because it has been bought off. It is as simple as that. And until we get clean money we are not going to get clean elections, and until we get clean elections, you can kiss goodbye government of, by, and for the people. Welcome to the plutocracy. ”
When Congress enacted the LDA in 1995, it included a provision that lobbying expenses can NOT be deducted by for-profit companies and/or individuals as “ordinary and necessary business expenses,” as that term is defined in the tax code. Not-for-profit organizations must also track their lobbying expenditures and disclose such expenses on their Form 990 tax returns for purposes of generating information related to the “proxy tax.” Because of the tax issues related to tracking and reporting lobbying expenditures, the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) has promulgated regulations and issued numerous pamphlets and circulars explaining the IRC definitions and interpretations of the tax code provisions related to lobbying expenditures.
The LDA allows companies, associations and nonprofit organizations to keep one set of books and records, rather than two. Therefore, each entity reporting lobbying expenditures (not income) is permitted to choose whether to track its lobbying activities and, hence, its expenditures in accordance with the IRC or the LDA. HLOGA made no changes to this aspect of the LDA.
The option of using the IRC definitions is not available to lobbying consultants, lobbying firms or individual lobbyists, because those individuals and entities report income under the LDA rather than expenditures.
The LD-2 reporting form directs a filer reporting its lobbying expenditures to indicate which method it is using to calculate its lobbying activities and costs:
Method A – The LDA definitions
Method B vigrx plus price – Section 6033(b)(8) of the IRC – charitable organizations making the 501(h) election for lobbying activities
Method C – Section 162(e) of the IRC – for profit entities, trade associations, labor unions and other not-for-profit entities
Key Points to Remember in Choosing a Reporting Method
There are several important principles to bear in mind regarding the choice of the IRC (rather than the LDA) method.
Whatever method is chosen, it must be used for all reports during the same calendar year.
Regardless of whether Method B or C is the chosen reporting method, the tracking and definitional issues are identical.
It is not permissible for a registrant making the IRC election for calculating its lobbying expenditures to change reporting methods during a reporting (calendar) year. Once the election is made regarding the definition for calculating and tracking lobbying expenditures for LDA reporting purposes, the election should be reflected on the first quarterly report filed in April and followed for the remainder of the calendar year.
Whatever method is chosen, it must be used consistently for all purposes.
The definitions of the method chosen must be used for all purposes related to LDA reporting. In other words, it is NOT permissible for a registrant to mix-and-match definitions from the IRC and the LDA when tracking, calculating and reporting lobbying expenditures.
For more information or to purchase the Lobbying Compliance Handbook click here.
As March Madness winds down and we are left with only four teams standing, we took a look at Roll Call‘s “Men’s March Madness in the House” bracket, which matches each school in the tournament with its House representative, to see which Congressmen (and issues) are coming out on top.
Rep. Ben Chandler (D-Ky.) fought his way out of the East. Not only is Chandler the representative for the University of Kentucky’s district, he also obtained his B.A. and J.D. from the school (in 1983 and 1986, respectively). Positioned on the House Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, he is perched to address his concerns over national security and the fight against terrorism and reducing forces in Iraq and increasing economic development to maintain stability in Afghanistan. He will also influence further U.S. action in Libya and throughout the ever-crumbling middle East. The fourth term representative of Kentucky’s sixth district will be paired with….
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) in the playoff game to decide who will advance to the title game. Though Kentucky is a two-point favorite over U-Conn to win Saturday, Courtney, who graduated from the university’s law school in 1978, may not be ready to concede victory after only three congressional terms. Expect a tough fight from the school whose representative has been a strong advocate for healthcare, veterans, and small businesses.
In a time that is equally troubled by foreign conflict and a domestic economy that we desperately want to peg as recovering, it will be interesting to see which represented issue, er school, advances to the next round (of priority).
The two underdogs in the competition, VCU semenax in australia and Butler, are represented by Reps. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) and Andre Carson (D-Ind.). Scott, now in his 10th term, is a strong proponent of education and youth programs. He is the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and sits on the Subcommittee on the Constitution (both under the Committee of the Judiciary), and is a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Education issues have been pushed out of the forefront of most conversations recently, apparent only in President Obama’s discussion of the budget (particularly, his desire to increase education funding while appropriators continue to push for cuts across the board, including to education spending).
Just as Scott’s legislative agenda is the underdog on the congressional slate, so is the school he represents, with Butler afforded a 2.5 point advantage on the books. However, expect a fight out of VCU (and Scott) as they prepare to go up against Butler, who has won each of its tournament games with a close margin. Butler has been great at rallying from behind (see Southeast regionals), and pulling out the win in the end. Carson, whose committee assignments are all related to financial matters — with seats on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprise and the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade — will face a similar come-from-behind fight in Congress as he battles against budget-slashing zealots in the House. Even if he beats out Scott to advance to the title game, he (like Butler) is not favored to win a toe-to-toe stand down against House Republicans.
But you never know. That is, after all, the beauty of March Madness.
Lobbying Outside Washington:
Mastering the Differences in State and Federal Compliance April 26, 2011 2:00-3:30 pm EST
Audioconference- Dial-in from anywhere!
When it comes to lobbying and campaign finance, rules are often more stringent at the state level than at the federal level. Plus, rules for specific activities differ not only from federal to state, but from state to state – and they keep changing rapidly. Learn how to prevent violations before they occur…
Register for Lobbying Outside Washington: Mastering the Differences in State and Federal Compliance. In this vital new audioconference, top state and local lobbying experts reveal “outside Washington” pitfalls. Whether you are new to lobbying or political activities at the state level, or are expanding into multiple states, this practical guidance helps you empower every member of your team to promote your cause without triggering compliance issues or negative publicity.
Listen in to learn hcg diet how to navigate state campaign and lobbying laws, including how to:
Avoid common – but costly – mistakes at the state level
Address the regulations that trigger the majority of concerns
Understand state-to-state differences in filing of activity reports
Know how differing federal and state definitions of “lobbying” and “political activities” affect compliance
Ensure compliance when lobbying in multiple states
Handle data and records to help in the event of an audit
Correctly classify activities as grassroots lobbying or goodwill building – and how to report them correctly at the state and/or federal level
Register and report spending/income for lobbying organizations vs. individual lobbyists and even clients
Comply with the state restrictions on gift and campaign contributions that don’t apply at the federal level Minimize the consequences of violating state rules
Learn about new and potential state lobbying & ethics law changes
A Politico story published today reports that the House Ways and Means Committee released a report asserting that AARP’s interest in the healthcare overhaul presented a conflict of interests, considering the group’s connections within the industry.
The story quotes GOP lobbyist Chris Lamond of Thorn Run Partners, who says, “There is certainly a sense of getting back at some of those groups that supported [healthcare reform]. It is a little bit like, ‘We are in charge of the House side, we are going to hold their feet to the fire.’”
AARP spent $114,706,000 in lobbying dollars during the critical period between giada delaurentis little pokies 2008-2010 (when healthcare reform legislation was passed, and then Republicans, running largely on promise to repeal the measure, took control of the House of Representatives). This is purely the amount spent on direct lobbying, as reported on LDA disclosures filed with the Senate. This does not speak to any campaign donations on behalf of the organization, or direct contributions made by members at the urging of their association leadership.
The story goes on to contend that the IRS, which the House committee has designated as being responsible for taking action on the issue, has not raised any qualms with the organization.
A new lobbyists.info survey found that though most government relations professionals report spending very little time on coalition building, the strategic alliances promote more efficient, effective lobbying tactics.
Forty-seven percent of those surveyed say they spend less than one day each week on activities to support coalition building, but just under half (48.7%) reported participating in 2-5 coalitions in the last 12 months.
“[C]oalitions are a wonderful took for smaller or single-issue organizations looking to expand their audience,” says Laura Renz, Director of Government Relations & Research at Campaign Freedom.
Interest in a specific issue, followed closely by interest in a specificpolicy or piece of legislation, were by far the greatest factors considered when joining a coalition, with 87.2% and 84.6% of respondents, respectively indicating these as “very useful” factors in making the decision, and 61.5% ranking both compatibility of industry and organization type as “somewhat useful.” (Compatibility of organization type received more “very useful” ratings — 20.5% versus 17.9% for common industry.
For Campaign Freedom, all of the above were factors in the decision to join a coalition. “We had an issue come up last year that was huge for my organization that we had a lot of expertise on, but not necessarily the ability to get that information out to a broad audience,” Renz says. “Reaching out to a larger association that had an interest in the same issue but not the expertise was hugely beneficial for everything, and since then I’ve always considered coalitions to simply be getting more bang for your buck.”
An overwhelming majority (94.9%) of respondents reported that the first place they turn to recruit potential allies is personal and industry networks, and 64.1% rely on either print or electronic news sources as a primary resource for information about current and proposed coalitions. Other sources of information sought when building coalitions included electronic databases like lobbyists.info, content management software, action alerts, and targeted campaigns.
Just over half of responses (55.8%) indicated that technology is used to identify potential allies or adversaries, but an astonishing 89.5% reported technology is useful for disseminating information about their own efforts, and 84.2% reported using technologies to track legislation or issues.
Absent intervention into campaign finance reform by the judicial branch, those hoping to put limits on what has been referred to as a”floodgate” of campaign funding made possible by last year’s Citizens United ruling have sought help from the Federal Communications Commission.
Media Access Project senior vice president and policy director Andrew Schwartzman argued last week that the FCC has long had the power to require political groups to disclose donors when running political ads. In a petition filed March 22, he calls on the agency “to amend and strengthen its rules to require on-air identification of persons paying” ’25% or more of the cost of an ad, according to the organization’s official press release.
Schwartzman said, “The FCC has repeatedly said that members of the public are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded, and it has stressed that this is especially important in the case of political messages. This petition simply seeks to update the FCC’s rules to fulfill its Congressional mandate.”
The petition points out what it believes to be “a fundamental policy…that ‘listeners are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded.”
This effort by the Media Access Project is the latest attempt by campaign finance reformers seeking to narrow the reach of theCitizens United decision. Several attempts have been made to urge the Supreme Court to re-define the judgement’s implications, but the Court has declined to hear these appeals.