HomeEssential Ethics / February 25th, 2022

Essential Ethics

February 25th, 2022

Latest Developments:

  • The Iowa Ethics Commission issued Advisory Opinion 2022-01 permitting campaign contributions in cryptocurrency, and declaring that those contributions are to be reported as “in-kind contributions.” The currency is valued at the time of liquidation.  Committees are prohibited from spending cryptocurrency on goods or services, because all expenditures must be made from a bank account in a financial institution located in Iowa.
  • The United States Department of Justice has published the comments it received in response to its advance notice of rulemaking in connection with the Foreign Agents Registration ActReuters explains that “Several large U.S. law firms have made recommendations to the U.S. Justice Department that they said will provide more clarity regarding the public disclosure requirements.”
  • The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cowboys for Trump v. Toulouse Oliver, ruled that Cowboys for Trump is a political committee required to register with, and report to, the State of New Mexico. The court affirmed a lower court’s decision not to enjoin the Secretary of State’s efforts to enforce state disclosure laws.  Among other things, the court found that the plaintiffs “have not established their donors have suffered or are likely to suffer an injury in fact due to the reporting or disclaimer requirements.”
  • A California State Senator introduced a B. 1367, which would “prohibit a state agency… from awarding a contract for which the state agency has not secured at least 3 competitive bids or proposals to a company that has made a behested payment at the behest of the Governor in the preceding 12 months.” The Sacramento Bee quotes the author, who said he was “concerned about the increasing use of massive no-bid contracts.  I believe a transparent and accountable government is a good government…”

Reminders:

The Practising Law Institute presents Nonprofit Involvement in Elections: What to Look for in 2022, a one-hour webinar on March 29, 2022, from 10-11 am PT, moderated by Joel Aurora of Nielsen Merksamer.

This program will address the role of nonprofits as vital participants in elections, praised for nonpartisanship by some and derided as vehicles for “dark money” by others.  With the 2022 midterm elections rapidly approaching, nonprofit organizations will again be involved in a range of election-related activities.  As a result, it is crucial that nonprofit organizations—including 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(6) groups—and corporate donors understand the laws governing participation in advocacy and politics.

Interested persons may register here.  CLE credit will be available.

In Case You Missed It:

  • Tennessee Lobbyist ContributionsNewsChannel 5 Nashville continues its coverage of state lobbyist activities with a report on lobbyists’ campaign contributions.  “More than a decade ago, lawmakers supposedly tried to outlaw the practice.”  The article describes lobbyists’ use of “bundling” contributions from others and passing on contributions from lobbyist employers and affiliated PACs, noting that “it gives them a chance to personally put the checks into the hands of the lawmakers they’re trying to influence.”
  • A. Fundraiser LimitsKnock LA reports that a commissioner for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power sent out invitations to a fundraiser at her home for a city councilmember who is running for City Controller.  The article points out that “it is prohibited for city commissioners to hold fundraisers for a candidate for office. It is also a violation of city ethics laws for city officials to ask someone else to make a contribution, to put their names on an invitation, to put their name or signature on a fundraising event, to use their home for a fundraising event, or to act as an ‘agent or intermediary in the making of a contribution.’”  The fundraiser was held in October 2021; the councilmember “did not respond” to Knock LA.
  • Russian Effect on Lobbyists: According to The Hill, the Russian Invasion of Ukraine has an impact on D.C.-based lobbyists.  ”Lobbying firms have terminated their contracts with the company behind the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline after the U.S. imposed sanctions on the Russian firm in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.”  The article points out that lobby firms collected a few million dollars lobbying on behalf of various parties interested in the pipeline.