 |
|
Blog
|
|
Welcome to the Holtzman Vogel Law Blog. We aim to keep you
up to date on important legal developments and other items of interest. On this
blog, we'll track developments in the news and changes to the rules and regulations
affecting political committees, corporate PACs, trade associations, non-profit groups
and advocacy organizations. We'll also keep you updated on the lobbying and ethics
arena. The Law Blog is designed to supplement our regular newsletter.
On behalf of the Holtzman Vogel team, I hope you find this site helpful and interesting.
And we hope you'll become a regular visitor. (If you'd like to receive our newsletter,
please click here to sign up.)
Jill Holtzman Vogel
|
Thursday, August 05, 2010
AP: Calif. campaign watchdog eyes new Internet rules
AP reports "Politicians' tweets and status updates should be held to the same standards as paid advertising that voters see on television, hear on radio or find in their mailboxes, California's campaign watchdog agency says in a report being released Monday. The Fair Political Practices Commission is considering how to regulate new forms of political activity such as appeals on a voter's Facebook page or in a text message."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
CQ Politics: Independent Expenditure Groups Start Lining Up at FEC
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Holiday Weekend Roundup
Politico: More union disclosure woes ("A Center for Public Integrity inquiry shows that for the past five years, disclosure forms filed by the 300,000-member National Association of Letter Carriers have failed to detail the group’s specific lobbying activities, as required by law. In May, the Center revealed that the American Maritime Officers union had violated disclosure laws for nearly a decade without detection by the two congressional offices tasked with oversight.")
Chicago Tribune: Lawsuit attacks Mich. limit on some political cash ("A Republican political strategist has asked a federal judge to strike down some of Michigan's limits on campaign donations, saying First Amendment rights are being violated by the restrictions....The $500 limit on contributions by individuals to House candidates hasn't changed in more than 30 years, making it worth about $132 when adjusted for inflation, according to the lawsuit filed this week in federal court in Grand Rapids.")
Boston Globe: Ruling widens the meaning of ‘media’ ("A little-noticed Federal Election Commission ruling that expands the definition of “media’’ to include a partisan film production group is the latest in a series of actions eroding legislative limits on the influence of money in politics.") This "little-noticed" Advisory Opinion was widely reported, and we noted it here on June 11. The first half of the Globe's article is essentially an editorial, parroting the "reform" community's comments focusing on the partisan nature of Citizens United (which is irrelevant under long-standing "media exemption" precedent at the FEC), and ignoring the limited nature of the FEC's decision. The second half of the article actually explains the FEC's opinion, and makes clear that the FEC did not decide that all political organizations are now the "media." ("The latest FEC ruling left it unclear precisely what a political group has to do to qualify as a media organization.")
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Wash. Post: New records show some lobbyists are top fundraisers for political candidates
The Washington Post examined the lobbyist bundling filings at the FEC and came up with this report. From the report: "For the first time, the records provide a clear public view into one of the most influential subcultures in Washington: lobbyists who moonlight by bundling campaign contributions for candidates and their political parties. The fundraising occurs even as the same lobbyists attempt to shape legislation to benefit their clients, including energy firms, insurers and other corporations with major financial stakes in the outcome of federal legislation."
Monday, May 17, 2010
AP: Md. may regulate campaign use of social media
The AP reports "Political candidates in Maryland may be required to clearly identify their campaign when using social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter. Jared DeMarinis, candidacy and campaign finance director for Maryland's Board of Elections, said he is drafting regulations now to require candidates clearly label their campaign's social media accounts, as they do with other forms of communication. DeMarinis said such rules will help protect the public from misinformation and candidates from people who may try to tarnish their reputation by establishing false accounts in their name....The Federal Election Commission has ruled that campaign regulations do not apply to most Internet activity, except for financial issues like paid political advertising on someone else's website. Several other states, however, are also considering whether they need new rules governing the use of social media in campaigns."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Seattle Times: Supreme Court takes up Wash. case involving disclosure of petition signatures
From the Seattle Times: "The U.S. Supreme Court this week will hear a Washington state case that could decide whether signing a petition for a ballot measure is a private, political act or whether the names of those signers can be made public. The case stems from the contentious battles over Referendum 71, in which traditional-marriage supporters last year unsuccessfully sought to overturn an expanded state domestic-partnership law that grants 'everything but marriage' benefits to gay and lesbian couples. Those who backed the repeal effort are trying to shield the petitioners' names from disclosure, saying they could be harassed if their identities are revealed. Some gay-rights supporters had requested the names and said they would post them on the Internet. Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed says such information is subject to disclosure upon request, as required by the state's Public Records Act."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
DOD Regulations Add Another Disclaimer Wrinkle To Campaign Ads
From the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Sen. Arlen Specter argues that Rep. Joe Sestak's first TV ad violates Pentagon regulations by using pictures of the former Navy admiral in uniform without a disclaimer. Those rules allow retired soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to discuss their service and display uniformed images of themselves in political communications - as long as they attach a label that says 'military images and information do not imply endorsement by DOD [Department of Defense] or service branch.' ... Sestak dismisses the flap over a few words on a TV screen as a trivial distraction....Pentagon regulations have long barred use of government video or still pictures in political ads, and active-duty personnel cannot participate in politics in uniform. In 2008, a directive said retired military personnel could use their service in political material as long as they stipulated that the Pentagon was not endorsing them, and as long as the military experience was not the primary focus of the ad."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Bloomberg: Secret Funding of U.S. Chamber’s Political Ads May Be Outlawed
From Bloomberg News: "U.S. companies would lose their ability to secretly finance political advertising run by organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce under a bill being considered by Democratic lawmakers. The proposed legislation is a response to a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their own money on political ads."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The Hill: Advocates: Earmark database needed
From The Hill, "Congressional appropriators aren’t meeting the White House’s goal of creating a searchable earmark database, according to transparency advocates. A group of watchdogs called EarmarkData.org is pressing lawmakers to follow through on the administration’s push to make it easy to search for requests and awards of earmarks, which are the provisions members of Congress insert into spending bills to steer federal money to specific projects."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
CQ Politics: In-House Underreporting Obscures Millions in Lobbying
CQ Politics reports " More than 1,200 companies, unions and other groups have underreported at least $338 million worth of lobbying during the past 12 years, according to a CQ MoneyLine study.... Florida Citrus Mutual appears to have made the common mistake of reporting only its in-house expenses on its lobbying disclosure reports. But the Lobbying Disclosure Act requires that lobbying entities with in-house lobbying operations disclose all lobbying costs on their in-house filings, including money spent on outside firms, even though the outside firms must also separately disclose the revenue they receive from the clients. Companies, unions and other groups that seem to have made a similar error have underreported at least $338 million worth of lobbying during the past 12 years, according to the study."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Brad Smith: In Defense of Political Anonymity
Brad Smith has this article in the latest edition of City Journal. Smith: "So widely accepted is the idea that campaign contributions and personal information about donors ought to be public that many people don’t even consider it regulation....But it’s far from clear that the forced disclosure of political contributions has benefited society. Disclosure has resulted in government-enabled invasions of privacy—and sometimes outright harassment—and it has added to a political climate in which candidates are judged by their funders rather than their ideas."
Saturday, February 27, 2010
NYT: Decision Could Allow Anonymous Political Contributions by Businesses
The New York Times continues its critical coverage of the Citizens United decision with this piece: "Experts say the ruling, along with a pair of earlier Supreme Court cases, makes it possible for corporations and unions to donate anonymously to nonprofit civic leagues and trade associations. The groups can then use the money to finance the types of political advertisements that were at the heart of last month’s ruling, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission....That means that those nonprofit groups, which are not required to disclose their donors, can now use corporate contributions to buy political commercials, and the corporations can potentially operate behind the anonymity of their donations."
Friday, February 19, 2010
Mona Charen Borrows From Brad Smith, Questions Disclosure of Contributions
Mona Charen has this column, "Rethinking Political Virtue," in which she asks if compelling disclosure of campaign contributions means "we are paying too high a price in political freedom to avoid the appearance of undue influence .... we have tamely accepted the idea our political contributions must be disclosed. But don't political views and activities deserve an expectation of privacy as much as book purchases, voting habits, and income tax returns? ... It's time to consider whether the chilling effect of excessive disclosure on free speech is worth it."
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
WSJ: Investors Seek More Disclosure on Political Spending
From the Wall Street Journal: "An effort by activist shareholders to prod companies to disclose political contributions is taking on new urgency following last month's Supreme Court decision loosening restrictions on corporate political spending. The Council of Institutional Investors and the Center on Political Accountability this month plan to send a letter urging disclosure to the chairmen of 430 companies. Activist investors also have filed shareholder resolutions urging disclosure at 54 of those companies, according to proxy adviser RiskMetrics Group Inc. . . . The disclosures typically include contributions to candidates, political parties and issue-based groups. Some companies also disclose memberships in trade associations which may lobby or contribute to candidates. Some of the contributions are not covered by disclosure laws."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Sunlight Foundation: A Comprehensive Disclosure Regime in the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Once all the available political points have been scored on the foreign corporations issue, the focus of pro-regulatory voices is likely to turn toward creating an even more comprehensive disclosure regime. The Sunlight Foundation has a seven point proposal here.
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, December 14, 2009
USA Today: More companies disclose their political activity; Businesses want to be transparent with the public about lobbying
From USA Today: "Sweeping ethics rules passed by Congress in 2007 require corporate interests that lobby Washington to reveal more information than ever, such as how much they donate to politicians' favorite charities. Yet companies don't have to detail how much money they give to powerful trade associations, nor does federal law require trade groups to disclose the amount they receive from each member for political activity. . . . Merck, which started disclosing association dues in 2008, is one of a handful of companies shedding more light on their political activity under pacts with the non-profit Center for Political Accountability. . . . Today, the Center for Political Accountability will announce that software giant Microsoft, Time Warner, Campbell Soup and Wisconsin Energy have agreed to detail their trade-association donations, along with other political spending."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Reports on House of Representatives Member Office and Committee Expenses Are Now Online
Interested in how each House member spends his or her official budget? How about the committees? These reports are now available online.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Federalist Society: "Politics For Professionals Only: Ballot Measures, Campaign Finance 'Reform,' and the First Amendment"
Dick Carpenter, Jeffrey Milyo, and John K. Ross have published this article for the Federalist Society. The authors discuss how concepts from campaign finance law work in the ballot measure context. They explain, "Campaign finance regulation was originally meant to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in politics—specifically, the trading of political favors for campaign contributions. But in the context of ballot measures, where the people are voting on proposed laws directly, there is no one to corrupt. Nonetheless, the kinds of campaign finance regulations intended for politicians have seeped into the realm of ballot issues."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Michael Dorf: Is There a Constitutional Right to Sign a Petition Anonymously?
Professor Michael Dorf examines the Washington state petition case, and concludes that "Whether there is such a right appears to be an open question." He suggests that the better solution to the issue may be legislative: "In the end, signing a petition for a ballot initiative looks very much like voting on such an initiative. And American states have reached the unanimous conclusion that the best way to run elections is with secret ballots. Likewise, even if it is not constitutionally required, the best way to run large petition drives will typically be by providing some substantial anonymity for signers. Thus, Washington would do well to construe or amend its Public Records Act to protect the anonymity of the Doe plaintiffs. The shield that Washington's conservatives seek today could prove invaluable for progressive causes—including marriage equality—tomorrow."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Wash. Post: Liberal group eyes conservatives' connections
The Washington Post reports "A liberal advocacy group is launching a new Web site Tuesday that aims to document the financial and political ties of conservative groups, many of which have emerged as major political forces this year in fomenting opposition to President Obama's policies. The Conservative Transparency Web site (http://www.conservativetransparency.org), which will be run by the Media Matters Action Network, uses Internal Revenue Service filings to track the major financial backers and beneficiaries of conservative activist groups."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
The Hill: Study: Lobbyists are quitting at record pace
The Hill reports "Lobbyists are quitting the business at a record pace, according to a study released Monday. Over 1,400 lobbyists "deregistered" with Congress in the second quarter of 2009, according to a study conducted jointly by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) and OMB Watch. . . . The giant spike in resignations came just after the Obama administration instituted strict new rules on lobbyist activity. The White House banned employees from receiving gifts from lobbyists and announced that any lobbyist hired by the executive branch could not work on the same issues on which he or she lobbied."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
NYT: Privacy Looms Over Gay Rights Vote
From the New York Times: "At a time when voters in many states are using petitions to qualify ballot measures on issues from gay rights to property rights, a legal dispute over the identity of 138,000 petition signers here is raising new questions about privacy, free speech and elections in the Internet age. On Tuesday, voters in Washington State will decide whether to extend to registered domestic partners the same rights married couples have, short of marriage. But the campaign over the referendum, placed on the ballot by opponents of same-sex marriage, has been overshadowed by one issue: whether the individual names of the petitioners should be made public, and ultimately, circulated on the Web. . . . Some advocates for releasing the names who support the expansion of the state’s domestic partnership rights say they want to post the names of petition signers as a check against fraud but also to encourage potentially “uncomfortable” conversations with the people who signed the petitions."
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
George Will on Disclosure of Petition Signatures
George Will writes, "On Tuesday, Washington residents will vote in a referendum that has national significance because of a controversy about disclosing the names and addresses of those who signed petitions to trigger the referendum. Disclosure threatens the right to privacy, which is under assault by a spreading movement -- call it thuggish liberalism -- that uses intimidation to suppress political participation. The referendum is on a new state law that some say establishes same-sex marriage. This is a matter about which people differ. What is, however, unambiguously wrong is the attempt by some supporters of the law to force disclosure of the names and addresses of the 138,000 people who signed the petition bringing about the referendum. This can have no other purpose than to make it possible to harass those signers."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
NYT: Lobbying Disclosure Forms Don't Tell Full Story
The New York Times features this report, which notes that Congress' definition of "lobbying activity" does not include grassroots efforts. As the Times explains, "Congress allows groups that file lobbying reports to choose from three formats for totaling their spending. One is a narrower disclosure as defined by Congress. The other two, defined by the Internal Revenue Service, use a far broader definition for lobbying. ACCCE -- along with groups that include the American Petroleum Institute, the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association -- uses the format that excludes grass-roots activity, leaves out most advertising spending and does not show money spent on state and local lobbying."
Mixed in with liberal advocacy groups' complaints about the lack of grassroots lobbying disclosure, the article includes a useful summary of the three disclosure methods.
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Hill: Healthcare lobbyist bundles big bucks for key Senate Democrats' campaigns
The Hill reports "A vital player in the battle over healthcare reform raised the most campaign contributions for Senate Democrats so far this fall, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. Ken Raske, president and CEO of the Greater New York Hospital Association, collected donations worth more than $152,000 for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in September alone, according to the latest FEC reports. . . . Under an ethics law Congress passed in 2007, politicians must report to the FEC lobbyists who have bundled money for their campaigns."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Los Angeles Times: Gay marriage fight fuels debate over petitioners' rights; Gay rights advocates have sought to use petition signatures to expose their opponents, which raises the question: Is signing a petition a public or private act?
The Los Angeles Times has this report on the ongoing battle over petition signature privacy - "The fierce fight over same-sex marriage in California and elsewhere is creating pressure to recognize a new free-speech right that could keep petition signatures secret.
The Supreme Court voted last week to block release of the names of more than 138,000 people in Washington state who signed petitions seeking to repeal a same-sex domestic partner law in a ballot scheduled for Nov. 3.
The Supreme Court's intervention set off a broad debate among election-law experts and 1st Amendment scholars over what is private and what is public when it comes to politics."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
New York Times: Justices Uphold Ban on Releasing Names on a Petition
The New York Times reports "The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld an order preventing Washington State from releasing the names of more than 120,000 people who signed petitions seeking a voter referendum on whether to give same-sex couples most of the same rights as married couples.
The 8-to-1 decision, with Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting, upheld a recent ruling in Federal District Court in Washington that was overturned last week by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The order by the Supreme Court said the injunction against releasing the names would remain in place at least until parties involved filed new motions. That process could take months and essentially assures that the names will remain anonymous through the Nov. 3 referendum."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, October 05, 2009
USA Today: Most lobbyist money going to Dems
USA Today reports, "Fundraising by Washington lobbyists so far this year has chiefly benefited the Democratic Party, according to a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance reports available for the first time under a new ethics law. Federal lobbyists helped collect more than $3.7 million during the first six months of 2009, and nearly $2.3 million went to Democrats, the analysis shows."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, September 25, 2009
CQ Politics: Charitable Donations Offer Way Around Lobbying Limits
From CQ Politics: "Federal law limits the amount individuals and groups can contribute to congressional campaigns, but there are no restrictions on donations to lawmakers’ favorite causes, charities and institutions — and such giving has long been widespread. Only since Jan. 1, 2008, however, has there been a requirement to disclose it. In the 18 months ending June 30, corporations, unions and other professional associations registered to lobby Congress reported more than $56 million in contributions to organizations and events honoring lawmakers and administration officials, according to a CQ MoneyLine analysis of lobbyist filings."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Hill: Bundling rule doesn’t capture all the fundraising by lobbyists
The Hill has this piece on lobbyist bundling disclosure. The article begins, "A law designed to shine a bright light on big political campaign contributors on K Street has in practice not been particularly illuminating, watchdogs charge." FEC Commissioner Weintraub is quoted: "'If I had my way, we wouldn’t just have disclosure of bundlers as lobbyists. We would have more,' said FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. 'It was a compromise. It was not perfect, but it was the best thing we could do.'" While Commissioner Weintraub may be trying to distance herself from the FEC's regulation (for which she voted to approve), she does capture a crucial point that critics seem to be either missing or willfully ignoring (see this recent AP article, for instance). The law that was enacted requires only the disclosure of lobbyist "bundlers," and not every instance of a lobbyist crossing paths with a campaign fundraiser.
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
San Angelo (TX) Standard-Times: Two fundraisers unreported for Conaway and Cornyn; spokesmen said they didn't have to disclose
A few days ago, the AP published a story about how lobbyists were "helping" candidates raise money, but were evading lobbyist bundling disclosure requirements. Now comes more of the same from the San Angelo Standard-Times: "Two lobbyists hosted a fundraising breakfast for San Angelo Congressman Mike Conaway in May at Bistro Bis, a chic French restaurant on Capitol Hill.
Price of admission: $500 a person and $1,000 for a political action committee.
That same month several lobbyists hosted U.S. Sen. John Cornyn’s Cinco de Mayo fundraising event at the National Republican Senatorial Committee near the Capitol complex.
Contributions: $2,500 per host, $1,000 for a PAC and $250 for an individual.
Neither fundraiser turned up in reports required by a new campaign finance law designed to stem illegal influence peddling in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal. The idea is to force lawmakers to disclose connections between themselves and lobbyists promoting agendas." According to a Conway spokesman, the lobbyist involved only raised $9,000, which is below the $16,000 reporting threshold. Sen. Cornyn's spokesman said simply that disclosure was not required. This article attempts to create a scandal out of nothing in exactly the same way as the earlier AP article.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
AP: PROMISES, PROMISES: Much lobbyist help undisclosed
The AP's Sharon Theimer (who used to spread the "reformers'" gospel while on the FEC beat) reports (opines?) that "Few members of Congress are disclosing that lobbyists are helping them raise campaign cash despite a new law that was supposed to shed light on the ties between lawmakers and the capital's influence brokers, an Associated Press review found." That could be because the law requires reporting of "bundlers," not all who fit Ms. Theimer's undefined notion of "help." Explains Theimer, "When it comes to disclosing lobbyist fundraising for lawmakers, there are so many loopholes that it basically amounts to an honor system." Fred Wertheimer himself couldn't have said it better.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Seattle Times: Judge shields signatures in gay-rights referendum
The Seattle Times reports "A federal judge has continued to keep private the names and addresses of those who signed Referendum 71, saying they likely are protected under the First Amendment and that the state failed to prove a compelling public interest in their release. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma granted a preliminary injunction today, blocking the state from making the petitions public."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
OMB Watch: Revisiting Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure
OMB Watch weighs in on "the lack of transparency in grassroots advocacy."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, August 10, 2009
CCP on Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure
The Center For Competitive Politics has this posting on the "reform" community's calls for grassroots lobbying disclosure.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
The Hill: Heightened focus on compliance captures more lobbying activities
The Hill reports "A new lobbying and ethics law that went into effect in January 2008 didn’t change the definition of what constitutes lobbying.
But the law, which Congress passed in the wake of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, did raise the penalties for not reporting activities that should be disclosed.
Ethics experts say that more companies and K Street firms are playing it safe and reporting activities that before might not have been included in their lobbying revenue reports filed to Congress."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
The Hill: No hard feelings - lobbyists pay $1M to honor Obama
The Hill reports "Lobbyists and special interests spent more than a million dollars during the first six months of 2009 honoring a man who is no fan of K Street: President Barack Obama. Corporate sponsorship paid for Inaugural festivities as well as events after Obama took office. . . . The recently released records were required under revamped ethics laws. In the reports, trade associations, companies and individual lobbyists reported spending more than $495,000 in honor of the new president, Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Termed 'honorary expenses,' the records list a broad range of lunches and conferences where Obama and others were commended and which the special interests helped finance via sponsorship. Expenses surrounding the presidential inauguration were required to be reported separately from honorary expenses. Firms and lobbyists reported spending little more than $700,000 on tickets, galas and even souvenirs surrounding Obama’s inauguration in January. Only the entities and individuals registered to lobby have to file a disclosure report, which means the total amount companies spent on the inauguration and other events could be much higher."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, August 03, 2009
WSJ: For State, Local Office Seekers, Web Ads Present Potential Pitfalls
From the Wall Street Journal: "The Florida Elections Commission has decided a mayoral candidate's ads on Google and Facebook appear to violate the state's election law because they don't include a disclaimer that indicates who bought them. Many other states, including Texas, Alaska, Connecticut and Ohio, also require similar disclaimers. The candidate's campaign, however, argues that the messages in question aren't technically ads, but rather links to ads, and that it doesn't pay for them unless a Web user clicks on them. When that happens, it says, the person is taken to a Web site that provides the appropriate disclosures."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Politico: Electronic disclosure bill gains support
Politico reports that "A few weeks after Speaker Nancy Pelosi mandated that House expense reports be published online, the Senate is considering going digital with its own expenditures, and there are serious negotiations to finally pass a bill that would also mandate Senate fundraising reports be filed online. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) says there’s a 'decent' chance the Senate’s tardy embrace of the digital revolution may happen soon, forcing senators to put all their office expenses — including staff salaries — online. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are negotiating when to bring up long-stalled legislation that would require campaign fundraising reports to be published on the Web."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Hill: Only one bundler is disclosed under new campaign finance rule
The Hill reports that the May 20 deadline for monthly FEC filers has yielded only one reported lobbyist bundler: "A pharmaceutical company that collected campaign contributions for Rep. Henry Waxman is the only bundler disclosed under a new ethics rule that took effect earlier this year. The political action committee for Gilead Sciences, Inc. has collected $17,500 in campaign contributions for LA PAC, a leadership political action committee affiliated with Waxman (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee." The article fails to mention that monthly filers have the option of filing their lobbyist bundling disclosures on a quarterly basis. And campaign committees aren't required to file monthly, meaning they weren't even subject to the May 20 deadline. The July 15 filings should be much more instructive.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Sacramento Bee: Billionaire Soros hit with $8,000 penalty by California campaign finance cops
The Sacramento Bee reports "George Soros has agreed to pay an $8,000 penalty to California's Fair Political Practices Commission for breaching the state's campaign finance rules five years ago. . . . The FPPC says that in October 2004, Soros made a $350,000 late contribution to the Drug Policy Action Network. However, he failed to disclose it in a timely way by reporting it as required under the state Political Reform Act. . . . Soros has admitted his fault and submitted the $8,000 payment to the state as part of the proposed settlement, FPPC spokesman Roman Porter said."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Brennan Center Attorneys Call For Public Disclosure of Dues Payments to 501(c)(6) Organizations
In an inventive display of hostility toward any corporate involvement in our political process, two attorneys for the Brennan Center (a New York based "reform" organization) argue that "It makes sense, given both this history and the current need for better information about corporate influence, that 501(c)(6) organizations should be subject to broader disclosure than other types of organizations. Current law allows dues from trade association members to be kept confidential, creating a vehicle to circumvent current disclosure laws."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Politico: Low-tech Senate slow rolls disclosures
From Politico: "But if you want to comb through the details of a senator’s quarterly campaign finance reports online, it’s going to take a month to get the information — and a boatload of government money to make it available.
While presidential candidates and members of the House of Representatives file their financial disclosures electronically, the Senate still does it the old-fashioned way. Senate campaign committees print out thousands of pages of forms and hand them over to the secretary of the Senate, who delivers them to the Federal Election Commission, which pays people to key in the information so that, at some point down the line, you can search the data online."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
The Hill: Earmarks: Online hide and go seek
From The Hill: "Scores of House members are hiding their earmark requests in obscure corners of their official websites — sticking to the letter of their new rule while shunning its spirit. The lawmakers are interpreting an ambiguous rule liberally, disclosing their requests as required on their official congressional webpages but avoiding any prominent display."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Washington Times: Barton's foundation not so charitable
From the Washington Times: "The top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee operates a tax-exempt foundation that has raised donations from the industries his committee oversees, while giving less than a quarter of the foundation's money to charitable causes, tax records show. . . . In recent months, Mr. Barton and his foundation have been trying to fulfill their charitable pledges by taking credit when companies give directly to community groups in the foundation's name - essentially bypassing a 2007 congressional requirement that donations from lobbying interests to lawmakers' charities be disclosed."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, April 03, 2009
CQ Politics Reports "Scores" of Members of Congress Missed a Recent Deadline to Disclose Their Leadership PACs
According to CQ Politics, "Scores of lawmakers missed a deadline to start disclosing their ties to political action committees as required by law. . . . Such widespread failure to officially declare their connections to so-called 'leadership PACs' means it may be some time before voters can see whether their senators and representatives have auxiliary funds that let them distribute money separately from their re-election committees. The new disclosures were due at the Federal Election Commission by March 29." The report alleges that 92 political committees "known to be controlled by members" missed the deadline.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Baltimore Sun: 77 political candidates face criminal charges; Prosecutors file complaints on campaign finance reports
The Baltimore Sun reports that "State prosecutors have filed criminal charges against 77 political candidates - including former Baltimore mayoral candidate Andrey Bundley - accusing them of violating election laws regarding campaign finance reports, according to the state prosecutor's office."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
National Journal: Bundling Rules Are In The Picture, But Out Of Focus; FEC Finally Sets Guidelines To 2007 Law, But Some Details Are Still Vague
The National Journal's Eliza Carney reports on the FEC's new lobbyist bundling reporting rules.
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
CQ Politics: Lobbying Overhaul Floods FEC with New PAC Filings
From CQ Politics on newly revealed Leadership PACs: "Since the beginning of March, at least 100 members of Congress have filed new or amended registration forms with the agency either revealing or clarifying their connections to fundraising vehicles separate from their campaign funds, according to a CQ MoneyLine study of campaign finance records."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Politico: Companies try to clean up their act
Politico notes that "a growing number of corporations are beefing up scrutiny and disclosure of their own political activities to shareholders. The Center for Political Accountability, an organization that works with shareholders to get companies to open their political books, is set to announce Tuesday that seven additional firms have agreed to do so: Alcoa Inc., Dow Chemical Co., Cummins Engine, U.S. Bancorp, El Paso Corp., Baxter International Inc. and Dominion Resources."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
AP: Judge says Wis. campaign finance laws go too far
The AP reports "U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller ruled that two state laws requiring disclosures by groups advocating for or against a state or local referendum went too far in restricting free speech."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, March 13, 2009
FEC Appears Set To Approve Socialist Workers Party's Request For Disclosure Exemption Extension
The FEC has posted a draft Advisory Opinion response (AO 2009-01) approving the Socialist Workers Party's request for an extension of its longstanding exemption from FEC contributor disclosure requirements.
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Hill: Senators closer to e-filing finance reports
From The Hill: "Senators running for reelection in 2010 are one step closer to filing their campaign finance reports electronically instead of on paper, as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced a measure most observers say is likely to pass this year."
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
9th Circuit Rules For Church In Disclosure Case
The 9th Circuit ruled yesterday that Montana's "incidental political committee" regulations could not be constititionally applied to a church that made de minimis in-kind contributions to a ballot initiative effort.
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
FEC Rule on Reporting Contributions Bundled By Lobbyists
The FEC's new rule on reporting contributions bundled by lobbyists, registrants, and the PACs of lobbyists and registrants was published in today's Federal Register.
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Senate Considering Electronic FEC Reporting, Again
The Hill reports that the U.S. Senate may be close to requiring its members to file FEC disclosure reports electronically, as is required of virtually every other committee that reports to the FEC.
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Donor Disclosure At Issue In California
The New York Times reports on the ongoing dispute over donor disclosure in California relating to Proposition 8. Supporters of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage are fighting to prevent the public disclosure of certain information about their donors. They allege that opponents of the measure have used information in public donor disclosure reprots to harrass supporters.
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
FEC Approves Lobbyist Bundling Reporting Regulation
Click here to read the entire post.
|
 |