|
|
Posts Tagged ‘FEC’
Thursday, September 26th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
ORAL ARGUMENTS are set to commence in a mere two weeks for McCutcheon v FEC, a Supreme Court case that could decide the constitutionality of biennial limits on individual donors’ total contributions to candidates, PACs, and parties. LobbyBlog last wrote on the case in March, citing lobbyists’ misgivings towards a future without a contribution ceiling. One such lobbyist, Tony Podesta, explained how a total contribution cap “is helpful to fend off entreaties from candidates who need more money.”
Now, OpenSecrets is pushing the argument that by abolishing the biennial cap, the Supreme Court would effectively nullify all contribution limits. Bob Biersack, Senior Fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics and contributor to OpenSecrets blog, calls this hypothesis “McCutcheon’s Multiplying Effect.” Currently, donors cannot give more than $74,600 total for each two-year cycle to PACs and parties, and no more than $5,000 each calendar year to a single PAC. Because of the biennial cap, each donor is ultimately limited to the number of PACs to which he or she can contribute. If, therefore, the biennial cap is abolished, so too would this limit.
So how would this negate the force of limits imposed on individual candidate contributions (currently set at $2,600 per election), which aren’t even being considered in the McCutcheon case? Here’s the crux of Biersack’s argument: “One of the first things that would surely happen without overall limits would be a wave of newly created PACs focused on specific candidate’s campaigns…” In other words, candidate X, now limited by the number of income sources from which his campaign depends, would benefit from a potentially infinite number of nominally varied PACs, all of which would transfer some portion of its coffers to him. Biersack again: “Without [biennial] limits, tens of thousands could become hundreds of thousands and hundreds of thousands could turn into millions….So much for $2,600 per election.”
So while it’s still possible the Supreme Court could reach beyond the scope of biennial limits and question other limits imposed by the FEC, it’s likely, according to Open Secrets, that it could achieve the same result with far less effort. The biennial cap seems much like a keystone holding the other limits in place. Pulling it out sends the whole edifice crumbling down.
Tags: Bob Biersack, Center for Responsive Politics, FEC, LobbyBlog, McCutcheon v FEC, OpenSecrets, OpenSecrets blog, Tony Podesta
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on McCutcheon v FEC: A New Perspective
Thursday, July 25th, 2013 by Vbhotla
TRACFONE, THE CELLPHONE company owned by Carlos Slim, the world’s richest man, is ramping up its lobbying efforts in the face of strong opposition, according to POLITICO. The Miami-based company is seeking to protect the Lifeline program (dubbed The Obama Phone by its critics), the goal of which is to distribute cellphones and Internet service to unemployed Americans so that they can find jobs, learn new skills, and draft résumés.
But TracFone is being criticized for its lobbying campaign to shift the program from disbursing Internet service to distributing smartphones, which would benefit the company’s bottom line. Critics argue that the program merely provides free cellphones without the benefits promised by TracFone. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), one of Lifeline’s staunchest opponents, argues:
This phone program has expanded far beyond its original intent, and as so many middle class Americans struggle underneath this economy, it is really offensive for Washington to make taxpayers pay or free cellphones for others.
According to the FCC, however, the modern version of Lifeline is actually an expansion of a Reagan-era program that subsidizes phone service for the very poor so that they can contact the authorities in case of an emergency. During the George W. Bush administration, the program was expanded to include cellphones, and in 2012 was reformed once again to incorporate a Broadband Adoption Pilot Program that provides Internet access to lifeline-eligible households.
Although TracFone and its detractors continue to fight over the nature of the program, for now it seems evident that Lifeline is more than just a source for government handouts. Whether or not Slim and others can escape from the charge remains to be seen.
Tags: Broadband Adoption Pilot Program, David Vitter, FEC, Lifeline, politico, The Obama Phone, TracFone
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on TracFone, Vitter Dial Up Obama Phone Fight
Wednesday, February 27th, 2013 by Geoffrey Lyons
LAST TUESDAY, the Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to campaign contribution limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The limits in question are the ceilings – adjusted for inflation – that donors cannot exceed in a two-year election cycle. SCOTUSblog explains:
The two-year ceiling … — and this is what the new appeal is challenging – is set at $117,000 overall. That is broken down into $46,200 to a candidate for federal office and $70,800 to non-candidate entities, including national political parties and state political parties, and non-party committees. That second amount was restricted in that no more than $46,200 could be given to a state party or a non-candidate committee.
The plaintiffs are Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican who was itching to donate $8,200 more than the two-year maximum, and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The case is appropriately titled Shaun McCutcheon, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, and is expected to be decided during the Court’s next term.
To be sure, there’s no telling how the Court will rule. It will certainly make a decision on the two-year ceiling, but it may also abstract the issue and revisit contribution limits generally. This is because the rationale behind the constitutionality of these limits has been debilitated in the last 30 years, the most notable instance being the unprecedented 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
Below are the ’11-’12 election cycle contribution limits**, with the “biennial limit,” or two-year cap, in red.
For a compelling debate on the issue of money in politics, see here. For a summary and recorded oral arguments of Buckley v. Valeo, the ’76 decision upholding the constitutionality of contribution limits, see here. For the Citizens case, see here. For Knox v. SEIU, which decided on union money used for political contributions, see here.
|
Individual may give
|
To each candidate or candidate committee per election
|
To national party committee per calendar year
|
To state, district & local party committee per calendar year
|
To any other political committee per calendar year (1)
|
Special Limits
|
|
$2,500*
|
$30,800*
|
$10,000
(combined limit)
|
$5,000
|
$117,000* overall biennial limit:
- $46,200* to all candidates
- $70,800* to all PACs & parties (2)
|
|
National Party Committee may give
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
No Limit
|
$5,000
|
$43,100* to Senate Candidates per campaign (3)
|
|
State, District & Local Party Committee
may give
|
$5,000
(combined limit)
|
No Limit
|
No Limit
|
$5,000
(combined limit)
|
No Limit
|
|
PAC (multicandidate)(4) may give
|
$5,000
|
$15,000
|
$5,000
(combined limit)
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
|
PAC (not multicandidate) may give
|
$2,500*
|
$30,800*
|
$10,000
(combined limit)
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
|
Authorized Campaign Committee may give
|
$2,000 (5)
|
No Limit
|
No Limit
|
$5,000
|
No Limit
|
**Chart available at www.FEC.gov
Tags: campaign contribution limits, Citizens United, FEC, money in politics, rnc, supreme court
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on Court to Take Up Campaign Money…Again
Tuesday, December 4th, 2012 by Geoffrey Lyons
Meredith McGehee is the Policy Director of the Campaign Legal Center and principal of McGehee Strategies. She has been named five times by The Hill as one of the top nonprofit/grassroots lobbyists in Washington. McGehee can be reached at mmcgehee@campaignlegalcenter.org
IT'S A TRUISM that Members of Congress greatly depend on lobbyists for campaign fundraising. This is because lobbyists can do more than just give direct contributions: they can solicit the support of the entire company, industry, or organization they represent.
Until recently, this was a relatively coherent process. Lobbyists would help channel money to the right PACs, give advice to executives on individual contributions, and aid in managing bundling efforts. All of this was done under the fundraising restrictions imposed by the FEC, such as the $2,500 limit for individual candidates.
But things are different now, and $2,500 looks like chump change.
After the Citizens United
and SpeechNow.org court decisions, meaningful limits are gone. Members of Congress are still turning to lobbyists for campaign funds, but now the “ask” is for $10 million instead of $10,000. The pressure to deliver this money will only grow as Democrats begin to fully embrace Super PACs, which they originally shunned.
Also burdening lobbyists is the rise of “dark money” groups that aren't required to disclose their donors. Members of Congress see these as excellent avenues to get funding from a company or industry that they’d rather not associate with publicly.
Lobbyists at the center of the Washington money game will therefore be spending more time than ever figuring out how to respond to Member’s demands for money. So too will they be occupied trying to decipher who is behind the funds pouring in against their clients.
For the lobbyists who believe more in their powers of persuasion than their ability to solicit contributions, now is the time to speak up and support the American Bar Association's proposal to detach lobbying from fundraising.
zp8497586rq
Tags: campaign legal center, Citizens United, FEC, fundraising, Lobbying, lobbyist, meredith mcgehee, Speechnow.org v FEC, Super PAC, Super PACs
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on Meredith McGehee: Lobbyists Shouldn’t Let Lax Fundraising Rules Complicate Their Work
Thursday, November 18th, 2010 by Vbhotla
The changing environment of campaign finance regulations means lots of fun for lobbyists trying to do their job effectively. Actually, what it really means is a pain in the rear. Luckily, we here at LobbyBlog are combing through the laws on your behalf. If you are a lobbyist, you need to know the basic rules about bundling contributions.
Who is covered by the bundling rule?
A: Any lobbyist registered under the LDA and any PAC that is “established or controlled” by a lobbyist so registered is subject to the bundling restrictions.
What qualifies as “bundling”?
Contributions that are either “forwarded” — delivered or transmitted, either electronically or physically– or “received and credited” — received directly from a contributor, but credited to a specific lobbyist–are treated as “bundled.” It is worth noting that some campaigns now forbid lobbyists from “forwarding” any contributions because reporting these bundled funds has become too much of a hassle.
What is reportable?
Aggregate contributions of $16,000 or more during a single reporting period meet the trigger for report. However, all reporting committees must file semi-annually as well as quarterly to ensure that any contributions of $16,000 in aggregate funds is disclosed to the FEC, even if the contributions are not made in the same quarter.
Tags: Bundling, campaign contribution limits, FEC, LDA, lobbyist campaign contributions
Posted in Campaign Finance, Compliance Q&A | Comments Off on Bundles of FUNds Compliance Q&A
Thursday, November 11th, 2010 by Vbhotla
This election saw record campaign spending from outside groups. What changed to enable such astonishing third-party contributions?
- Citizens United – for the first time in over 60 years, unions and corporations were permitted to spend treasury funds on ads calling for the election or defeat of certain candidates. Prior to the ruling, these organizations were only permitted to advertise around particular issues, not in favor or opposition to particular candidates. Corporate executives can donate business funds to nonprofits to advertise on behalf of the corporation anonymously — without anyone ever knowing where the money originated — providing incentive for CEOs reluctant to have a company openly endorse candidates in the past.
- New FEC interpretation – The FEC has not required as much disclosure about advertising as it has in previous years, releasing a rule revision requiring only funds specifically donated for advertisements be disclosed. This made it possible for contributors to avoid disclosure by simply not specifying where their money should be spent. Half of the commissioners narrowed the margin for disclosure requirements even more, allowing funds to be designated for advertising and still avoid disclosure, as long as the contributors didn’t spe
 cify for which ad the money would be spent. This drastically decreases the donation disclosure.
- Super-PACs and the Speechnow aftermath – Citizens United opened the door for unlimited spending, which may have been the Pandora’s Box that led to the verdict in Speechnow.org v. FEC. Thanks to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (and the U.S. Supreme Court who later refused to hear the case to overturn the verdict), groups can now identify as “independent expenditure committees,” allowing unlimited contributions from unlimited sources, though they must register as PACs.
To recap: thanks to two anti-regulatory court rulings, now groups can receive unlimited contributions fro
m unlimited sources, then spend in unlimited amounts with fewer restrictions, as long as they continue to register with the FEC. The changing of the guard in the Capitol when the newly-elected Congressmen are seated should afford more changes, and less regulation, thanks to small-government favoring Republicans. Stay tuned!
Tags: campaign contributions, Campaign Finance, campaign finance limits, Citizens United, FEC, PACs, Speechnow.org v FEC, Super PACs
Posted in Campaign Finance | Comments Off on Campaign Finance in 2010
Monday, November 8th, 2010 by Vbhotla
In what many are calling a follow-up to the Citizens United ruling, and a blow to campaign finance reform, the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in the Speechnow.org vs. FEC case last week. Many are suggesting this broadens the reach of Citizens United and allows for increases freedom of speech in the electoral process.
The decision allows for unlimited donations to “independent expenditure groups” such as Speechnow.org, and challenges FEC regulation of campaign donations. While unlimited donations allows for greater spending on campaigns, it also maintained disclosure requirements, noting that continued registration and disclosure will be required.
Under the ruling, Speechnow and similar groups must register as a PAC and disclose contributions. As a result, over 50 such groups popped up around the country ahead of the mid-term elections, and this election cycle saw record spending. Watchdog group opensecrets.org noted that “significant investments from outside groups helped elect more than 200 federal candidates.”
Though both Democrats and Republicans received outside donations, it was Republicans who saw the greatest benefits of organizations’ ability to receive unlimited donations, and in turn, spend in unlimited proportions.
Tags: campaign donations, campaign finance limits, Campaign finance reform, Citizens United, Disclosure, FEC, Speechnow.org v FEC
Posted in Government Relations Alert | Comments Off on Supreme Court upholds PAC disclosure requirements
Friday, October 29th, 2010 by Vbhotla
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is seeking information regarding why Jack Abramoff was prevented from talking to the media about his role in what the organization’s executive director, Melanie Sloan calls “one of the largest congressional corruption scandals in history.” The full complaint filed in a suit against the Department of Justice can be found here.
Following up with a story posted earlier this week, “Campaign Finance Reformers see a tough road ahead,” the FEC has again come under fire for its lax regulation heading into the mid-term elections. Huffington Post reported, “according to campaign finance experts, it’s unlikely” that the FEC will punish campaign finance law violators any time soon. The article goes on to refer to the FEC as ” a toothless tiger made up of six members that usually deadlocks on the important decisions.”
 Lobbyists and organizations may be given a "get out of jail free" card by the FEC and the Obama administration, at least for a little while. This snowballs into another issue: President Obama’s demonstrated lack of commitment to advance his campaign reform platform. So far, despite having the opportunity (and perhaps responsibility, since the terms have ended) to replace three commissioners whose aversions to the regulatory laws reportedly prevent them from voting in favor of committee action against potential violators, the FEC’s make-up remains unchanged.
Donald McGhan, who remains a commissioner pending appointment of a successor, once said “[The FEC is] ‘not like other agencies because you have the charge of the fox guarding the hen-house. You gonna appoint your guys to make sure you are taken care of. The original intent was for it to be a glorified Congressional committee. That’s the way I see it,'” according to a column written by Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
The president is reportedly waiting on members of the Senate to recommend new FEC commissioners for him to appoint before replacing any members.
The Veterans’ Alliance for Security and Democracy (VetPAC) is one of several organizations griping about the Chamber of Commerce election spendings. The group filed suit against the Chamber Oct. 18, alleging its receipt of foreign funds may in some way damage the purity of its campaign contributions. VetPAC is surely banking on FEC regulation (no pun intended).
Tags: Campaign Finance, Campaign finance reform, FEC, Jack Abramoff
Posted in Campaign Finance, Lobbying News, Weekly Lobbying News Round-Up | Comments Off on Weekly News Round-up
Monday, October 25th, 2010 by Vbhotla
The Federal Election Commission does not intend to publish a rulemaking on the Citizens United decision until after the November mid-terms, despite having had almost ten months to do so. Democrats have urged the FEC to utilize their rulemaking power to blunt what they see as overwhelming corporate money in federal elections.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) led the charge of 15 senators requesting greater regulation of foreign campaign contributions, penning a letter to the FEC saying “while Congress will need to act, the Commission must immediately do its part to protect our elections from foreign influence,” and calling for strengthened policies and less ambiguous interpretations of the ruling.
After the failure of this summer’s DISCLOSE Act in the Senate, campaign finance reformers are not seeing action on the controversial judicial decision in the immediate future. Craig Holman, Public Citizen’s campaign finance lobbyist, told Politico, “This is a low point for the campaign finance reform movement — I’ve never seen it lower.”
Indeed, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act has suffered tremendous blows at the hands of the Supreme Court and FEC regulation. The agency has said it will alter its enforcement to be in compliance with the ruling, but has failed to implement any actual policies to do so thus far. Lobbyists who manage PACs or contribute to federal campaigns should be aware of the massive amount of maneuvering going on behind the scenes with campaign finance reform and potential implementation.
Tags: Campaign Finance, Campaign finance reform, Citizens United, DISCLOSE Act, FEC
Posted in Government Relations Alert | Comments Off on Campaign finance reformers see a tough road ahead
Friday, September 10th, 2010 by Vbhotla
Eliza Newlin Carney of National Journal writes an article on the future of the FEC in a “hostile” campaign finance environment. “Whither The FEC?”
The Senate’s newest member, Sen. Carte Goodwin (D-W.Va.) turns out to have had some lobbyist clients. “New Senator Had Clients Among K Street Heavyweights.” (The Hill)
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) took money from ex-earmark specialist Paul Magliocchetti, now indicted on fraud charges. Some (the Huffington Post) call on her to return that “shady” money.
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) is not a huge fan of the way the OCE handled an investigation of him. “GOP lawmaker rips ethics office after case dismissed”. Politico discusses the heavy case load that the OCE tries to sort through, while The Hill reports on whether the GOP would try to disband the unpopular extra-Congressional organization if given the opportunity.
And now, a word from our neighbors to the North: the Canadian Lobbying Code – a professional ethics code which “sets forth three basic principles (integrity and honesty, openness, and professionalism) and eight specific rules.” (h/t Point of Order blog)
Remember that Congressional Cigar Association that got some press from the Huffington Post in July? HuffPo now publishes a follow-up piece on Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.)’s involvement with the organization.
The buzz in D.C. was about whether Rahm Emanuel would quit his job as President Obama’s chief of staff to run for Chicago mayor. The Washington Examiner looks at a potential replacement for Emanuel – Tom Donilon, a former Fannie Mae lobbyist.
Sharron Angle was raising money amongst D.C. lobbyists, according to this report from Politico, “Sharron Angle heads to D.C. for lobbyist money.”
The U.S. Chamber, always a lobbying heavyweight, is throwing a lot of money into 2010’s mid-term elections. Story from The Hill, “Chamber ups its stakes in midterm election.”
Quote of the Week:
“We’re seeing a premium for Republicans … They’re the new ‘It’ girl.” – Ivan H. Adler, a headhunter who specializes in placing lobbyists, New York Times, 9/9/2010
Tags: Canadian lobbying, Eliza Newlin Carney, FEC, Ivan Adler, National Journal, Rahm Emanuel, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Rep. Frank Lucas, Sen. Carte Goodwin, Sharron Angle, Tom Donilon, US Chamber
Posted in Weekly Lobbying News Round-Up | Comments Off on Weekly Lobbying News Round-Up
Friday, September 3rd, 2010 by Vbhotla
The FEC’s two newest final rules were published on Aug. 27, along with two advisory opinions. See our post on that here, and the FEC’s press release here.
State and Federal Communications’ excellent blog LobbyComply has this interesting piece on the origin of the term “lobbyist.” See State and Fed’s always-useful Compliance Now newsletter for updates on state-level lobbying and compliance.
It seems like House Ethics is always in the news these days. The Office of Congressional Ethics voted to refer several lawmakers for potential violations of ethics rules. Reps. Crowley, Campbell (of California), and Price (of Georgia) were under scrutiny for their votes on financial services reform.
Speaking of House Ethics, Point of Order blog discusses the differences and similarities between Rep. Maxine Waters’ case and Rep. Sam Graves’ case (which was dismissed earlier this year).
The FEC’s RECORD newsletter is now available from their website, here. (PDF)
The Political Affairs Council has an interesting post on Corporate Social Responsibility and the role of CSR in today’s economy.
Open Secrets blog reports on the environment for campaign finance reformers. See post here, “Campaign Finance Reformers Facing Major Political, Legal Obstacles.”
Quote of the week:
“The next president of the United States on January 21, 2013 – – is going to start lobbying… He’s going to be lobbying Congress, he’s going to be lobbying other countries. He’s going to be lobbying the business community. He’s going to be lobbying the labor unions, the governors, because that’s what presidents do, and I feel like it’s an advantage for me to have the chance to do that.” – Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R), on whether his past as a lobbyist makes him a good potential candidate for president in 2012. (Politico, 9/1/2010)
Tags: ethics committee, FEC, Haley Barbour, Public Affairs Council, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Sam Graves, State and Federal Communications
Posted in Weekly Lobbying News Round-Up | Comments Off on Weekly Lobbying News Round-Up
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 by Vbhotla
The Federal Election Commission published two new final rules on August 27, and also issued two advisory opinions.
First is a final rule pertaining to coordination of political communications by outside groups with campaigns. The rule now:
add[s] a new standard to the content prong of the coordination rules to cover public communications that are the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The final rules do not alter the conduct prong of the coordination rules, but provide further justification for retaining the 120-day time period in the common vendor and former employee conduct standards. The final rules adopt a new safe harbor for certain commercial and business communications.
Second is a change to several federal election activity definitions:
The final rules revise the definitions of “voter registration activity” and “get-out-the-vote activity” (GOTV) to cover activities that urge, encourage or assist potential voters to register to vote, regardless of whether the message is delivered individually or to a group of people via mass communication. Brief, incidental exhortations to register to vote are exempt from the new definitions. The final rules clarify that certain voter identification and GOTV activities conducted solely in connection with a non-Federal election are not subject to the Commission’s Federal election activity regulations and provide that certain de minimis activities are not subject to the Federal election activity funding restrictions.
The rules do not take effect until December 2010.
View the FEC’s press release here: FEC Adopts Final Rules on Coordinated Communications and Federal Election Activity, Approves Two Advisory Opinions. (Link included on page to final rules and two published advisory opinions).
Washington Post reports on reactions by campaign finance reformers, “FEC Answers a Nagging Question – Sort Of”.
The FEC’s newsletter, the RECORD, is now online as well.
Tags: advisory opinions, Campaign Finance, coordination, election activity, FEC, Federal Election Commission
Posted in Campaign Finance | Comments Off on Campaign Finance in the News
Thursday, June 3rd, 2010 by Vbhotla
This week, our campaign finance update is a refresher on Lobbyist Bundling rules.
The disclosure of bundled contributions to federal candidates, leadership PACs and party committees was a provision in HLOGA, but it is a reporting requirement imposed on the recipient committees, not the lobbyists or lobbyists PACs that engage in fundraising and bundling of contributions.
The FEC finalized the bundling regulations in 2009, which include certain requirements for reporting bundled contributions.
- Any PAC controlled by an individual lobbyist or an association registered to lobby should have amended its PAC statement of organization by March 29, 2009 disclosing that the PAC is a “Lobbyist/Registrant PAC”. All new PACs established or controlled by a registered lobbyist or organization must now indicate the lobbying relationship when filing the initial statement of organization.
- Candidate committees, leadership PACs and national party committees are now required to disclose the names of lobbyists who bundle two or more contributions totaling more than $16,0005 during a reporting period.
The regulations define two categories for “bundled” contributions:
- Contributions forwarded by a lobbyist or a PAC controlled by a lobbyist or registrant
- Contributions credited to a lobbyist or a PAC controlled by a lobbyist or registrant
Next week, we’ll look at the definitions of “forwarded” and “credited,” as detailed by the FEC’s final regulations published in February 2009.
This post is condensed from the Lobbying Compliance Handbook.
Tags: Bundling, FEC
Posted in Campaign Finance, Ethics Tip | Comments Off on Lobbyist Bundling Rules
Friday, May 28th, 2010 by Vbhotla
The U.S. Chamber is not at all pleased about the Disclose Act, and they’re not afraid to say so. But House Dems say they’ve got the votes, and they’re not afraid to use them. So who will win? It’s tough to say, but a House Administration Committee hearing on the bill was abruptly cancelled on Thursday. When Members come back from their Memorial Day recess, maybe they will jump right in to campaign finance.
“K Streeters, it seems, jumped the gun in writing the obituaries of Republican trade association chiefs following the 2008 elections“, according to Roll Call. But the actual article indicates that the associations are hiring (and have hired) more Democratic government relations staff, to keep up with the political environment.
The FEC (again) couldn’t come to a conclusion on Soft Money. The Commission has been trying to decide “whether candidates and members of Congress should be allowed to raise money for separate nonprofits including ballot initiative committees that exceed $20,000.” (CQ Politics)
…and since you have Monday off, catch up on your Campaign Finance updates! The FEC June 2010 Record is now available. (PDF)
Connecticut Office of State Ethics penalized G. Kenneth Bernhard, for making three political contributions while serving as a Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board member (press release at CTOSE’s website).
Meanwhile, in Indiana, former Sen. (and former lobbyist) Dan Coats (R-Ind.) gets backlash for his spin through the revolving door. Sen. Coats is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.).
This Memorial Day, take some time to honor the men and women who have given their lives in defense of our country. If you’re in the D.C. area, be sure to check out the National Memorial Day Parade and the National Memorial Day Concert (which you can also catch on PBS!).
Tags: Connecticut ethics, Dan Coats, FEC, K Street, Memorial Day, U.S. Chamber
Posted in Lobbying News | Comments Off on Weekly Lobbying News Round-Up
Thursday, May 20th, 2010 by Vbhotla
Lobbyists.info and the American League of Lobbyists are hosting our second Lobbying Certificate Program session this year on PACs & Campaign Finance this coming Monday, May 24, from 8:45am-1:15pm.
Our sessions include a detailed presentation on rules, reporting, and thinking through an ethics situation in regard to a PAC; legal implications of LD-203 filings and other campaign finance laws; a look at the different types of PACs and Q&A with PAC experts.
In attendance to talk about registering, reporting, fundraising, staying on the right side of the FEC, and all things PAC, we’ll have:
- Officials from the FEC
- Caleb Burns, Wiley Rein LLP
- Gregg Knopp, American Council of Engineering Companies
- Wade Williams, PAC Outsourcing LLC
- Latasha Kindrick, PAC Outsourcing LLC
- Gordon Reel, Enterprise Holdings
Join us for a great session! Register here. More information on the Lobbying Certificate Program is here at the American League of Lobbyists’ site.
Tags: Campaign Finance, FEC, PACs
Posted in Campaign Finance, Training & Events | Comments Off on PACs and Campaign Finance Training Event Monday
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
