Latest Developments:
- The United States House of Representatives passed S 3059, which would “require federal judicial officers, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges to file periodic transaction reports disclosing certain securities transactions….Specifically, the bill requires federal judicial officers, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges to file reports within 45 days after a purchase, sale, or exchange that exceeds $1,000 in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities.” Having previously passed the Senate, the bill now heads to the President for signature or veto.
- The Center for Political Accountability has released their “Practical Stake: Corporations, Political Spending, and Democracy” report on corporate contributions to candidates for approximately the last four years. Analyzing contributions made through business affiliated PACs, 501(c)4 organizations, and trade associations, the Center then correlates these donations with policy positions taken by recipient lawmakers. In “the report, [the Center] then sets out a framework for companies to evaluate their political spending and align it with core company values and core democracy values, mitigating risks to their self-interest and to democracy.”
- The Colorado Senate voted to move forward with SB 237, which would “define ‘major purpose’ in campaign finance statutes and the parameters under which it would apply, particularly when it comes to issue committees.” As Colorado Politics reports, the bill has broad bipartisan support and seeks to “establish clear thresholds on spending, above which an organization would qualify as having a ‘major purpose’ of supporting a ballot measure and which would trigger registration as an issue committee, as well as a requirement to file campaign finance reports.”
- The City of Cincinnati is moving forward with a ban on campaign contributions from certain developers after the City Manager approved rules which will go into effect later this month. As local media reports, these “rules prohibit sitting council members and the mayor from soliciting or accepting campaign donations from…[developers] with active business at council.” The rules stem from an ethics ordinance passed last year in the wake of 3 City Council members arrested for alleged bribery. Still, critics argue that “the ordinance should be broadened to include more than just developers, because other types of people have a financial interest in decisions made by council.”
Reminders:
The Practising Law Institute presents Advanced Topics in Ethics and Compliance 2022: State and Local Government Contracts, a one-hour session on May 12, 2022, from 10:45-11:45 PT/1:45-2:45 ET, chaired by Elli Abdoli of Nielsen Merksamer. Watch online or attend in person in New York City.
Interested persons may register here. CLE credit will be available.
In Case You Missed It:
- Challenge Against Corporate Contribution Ban Denied (Again): The Supreme Court of the United States, without comment, denied certiorari to yet another challenge to direct corporate contributions to candidates. In refusing to hear Lundergan vs. USA on Monday, the Court, without noted dissent, was asked to consider “whether the federal ban on corporate contributions is unconstitutional as applied to intrafamilial contributions from a closely held, family-run corporation.” The case involved the contributions of the appellant, the father of a former Kentucky statewide office holder, facing criminal prosecution for contributions made to his daughter’s campaign.
- To Comment or Not to Comment?: In the wake of Florida’s decision to rescind certain business incentives for Disney after the latter’s criticism of recent legislation, corporate executives are reported to be concerned with how to avoid fallout for their own companies should they opine on hot button concerns. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reports that “[a]t many companies, vocal employees have in recent years pushed bosses to take public stands on social and political issues…[and now] Florida’s pushback against Disney has raised the stakes.” While, “[t]he old idea that CEOs should focus on shareholder returns and stay out of politics lingers in some corporate suites, even in a politicized age of public social-media discussions and more-activist workforces… the consequences of weighing in appear to be changing.”
- PAC Goes Public to Support Outsider Senate Candidate: Politico reports about the highly novel approach a Peter Theil backed super PAC took to helping the successful nomination of the largely understaffed come-from-behind J.D. Vance campaign for U.S. Senate in Ohio. Indeed, the super PAC, “set up a public website publish[ing] a trove of sensitive documents — from thousands of pages of polling data, to memos assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Vance’s opponents, to a 177-page opposition research book detailing all of the areas where Vance’s opponents might attack him.” While publishing the information this way made it available to everybody, it picked up the slack for a candidate who otherwise lacked much of the institutional campaign infrastructure of the other establishment candidates.” Also noteworthy, “Theil…[gave] $15 million in total to bolster Vance — the largest amount ever given to boost a single Senate candidate.”
- FARA’s Long Reach: The U.S. Department of Justice is being asked to investigate celebrity physician and Pennsylvania Senatorial candidate, Dr. Mehmet Oz for what an advocacy group claims is a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The accusation stems from a promotional video and ad appearances the candidate made for Turkish Airlines, which according to the New York Post, is 49.12% controlled by the Turkish government as of 2015. While Dr. Oz’s spokesperson contends that “[i]ndividuals and firms working to advance the bona fide commercial interests of a foreign business are not subject to FARA and not required to register,” a FARA expert contends that this type of public relations work would “likely…not qualify for the [commercial] exemption because the activities would directly promote the public or political interests of the foreign government.”
- Virtual Disclosure Considerations: In the wake of pandemic driven increase in virtual meetings, a report by Austin city auditors has brought to light the disclosure gap created by the lack of a requirement that lobbyists register their virtual meetings with City officials as they are required to do for in-person meetings. While the report noted that compliance with lobbyist registration and reporting was consistent, “nothing in city code requires either the lobbyist or the person being lobbied to keep a record,” according to The Austin Monitor. The report recommends revising the lobby ordinance to incorporate virtual meetings, similar to other Texas cities such as San Antonio and Dallas.