 |
|
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
No Political Spending For Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs, apparently aware of the political climate surrounding it, says it won't engage in any election spending. Or maybe it was just brow-beaten by New York City's "Public Advocate," Bill de Blasio. The New York Times reports, "The decision came after weeks of talks with the New York City public advocate, Bill de Blasio, who has lobbied for greater transparency from companies seeking to sway the outcome of elections."
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.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
New York State Senate Expels Duly Elected Member
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
NYT: Paterson Vetoes Ethics Bill, Saying It Isn’t Real Reform
The New York Times reports "Gov. David A. Paterson on Tuesday vetoed the Legislature’s attempt to create new ethics panels to monitor elected officials and to require greater financial disclosure by lawmakers, halting for now an overhaul of the rules meant to curb political corruption. Mr. Paterson said the proposals, which would give the Legislature the power to appoint a commission to police itself, were insufficient. . . . The prospect that any efforts to overhaul the state’s ethics laws and impose reform on Albany will succeed this year is now uncertain. The proposal appeared to lack critical Republican support in the Senate to override Mr. Paterson’s veto."
Click here to read the entire post.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Impact of Citizens United on State Laws
Writing for Examiner.com, Evan Johnston takes a look at New York campaign finance law after Citizens United. The Washington City Paper takes a look at D.C. election law.
Click here to read the entire post.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
NYT: Lawmakers Offer Ethics Plan, but Paterson Says It Falls Short
The New York Times reports "New York’s legislative leaders proposed their own ethics overhaul on Wednesday in an effort to restore public confidence in the wake of recent scandals that have exposed political corruption at the highest levels of power in Albany. . . . Gov. David A. Paterson, who last week offered a far more ambitious ethics proposal, denounced the plan, through a spokesman, as nothing more than 'election-year window dressing,' and he signaled that he would veto the proposal its current form, throwing into doubt whether change was possible this year."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
NYT: Paterson Seeks Overhaul to Combat Corruption
The New York Times reports "Gov. David A. Paterson on Wednesday will unveil a set of sweeping proposals to rein in political corruption in state government, including vastly expanded ethics oversight, term limits for all state officeholders and a system of public campaign financing modeled on New York City’s, administration officials said on Monday. Under the proposed legislation, which Mr. Paterson will make a centerpiece of his State of the State address on Wednesday, New York would for the first time provide matching funds to candidates for state office, limit lobbyists to contributions no larger than $250 and ban corporate contributions entirely. The maximum contribution for any candidate for state office, including the governor, would fall to $1,000 from $55,900, and the limits would apply to candidates who opt out of public financing."
Click here to read the entire post.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
John Fund: Invasion of the Election Snatchers
John Fund writes in the Wall Street Journal that "Local Democrats have encouraged weekend residents [in upstate Columbia County, New York] to register and vote on the theory that their ballots aren't needed in New York City, where Democrats already hold an overwhelming registration edge. In a lightly-populated upstate community, however, a few transplant votes can represent the balance of power. That was certainly the case last month in the town of Taghkanic, which has about 1,500 people. In a closely contested race for local offices, more than 20% of the ballots were cast by absentees, almost all of them by weekend residents who appeared to have delivered narrow victories to local Democrats. In response, Republicans have sued, pointing to evidence that many of the absentees were people whose jobs, drivers licenses and primary residences were in New York City and legally should have voted there. Some may even have voted in both jurisdictions. Approximately 60 absentee ballots are at issue and could sway the result of some races if disqualified."
Click here to read the entire post.
Friday, December 18, 2009
NY Daily News: Convicted ex-Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno will likely face jail time, say federal prosecutors
The NY Daily News reports "Get ready for some jail time Joe Bruno. That's the word from federal prosecutors who say they will likely recommend imprisonment for the 80-year-old former Republican kingpin who was convicted on corruption charges earlier this month. . . . Bruno, who presided over the [New York State] Senate for 14 years, was convicted Dec. 7 on charges of taking 11 payments worth $200,000 from two companies controlled by his pal Abbruzzese for consulting work he never performed."
Click here to read the entire post.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
NY Times: Bruno, Former State Leader, Guilty of Corruption
The New York Times reports "Joseph L. Bruno, the former Senate majority leader who, until his retirement last year, was one of the most powerful figures in New York politics, was found guilty on Monday of concealing hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from a businessman who sought help from the Legislature. . . . . After deliberating for nearly seven days, the jury of seven women and five men in Mr. Bruno’s trial found him guilty of two felony counts of mail fraud. The jury found Mr. Bruno not guilty on five counts of mail or wire fraud and could not reach a verdict on another count.
Mr. Bruno, 80, is scheduled to be sentenced on March 31 and faces up to 20 years and a $250,000 fine on each felony count."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, November 30, 2009
NY Times Editorial: It’s All About the Money
The New York Times editors partner with the New York Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) to produce this editorial, in which they wring their hands over New York's state campaign finance laws. According to the Times and its interest group partner: "As a result, big money rules in Albany. Big business, big unions, and any wealthy individual or interest group can buy access, block reforms, and sometimes even write their own laws. The state Board of Elections, which is supposed to enforce these flimsy rules, has almost no staff and no authority. The maximum fines are a joke: $500 for not filing a campaign disclosure report."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Wash. Post: Ex-N.Y. Senate leader faces corruption trial; Bruno accused of accepting commissions, gifts in return for favors
The Washington Post reports "On Monday, he [former state Senate Republican leader Joseph L. Bruno] faces trial on charges that could tarnish his legacy, send him to prison and serve as a de facto indictment of Albany's oft-criticized political culture.
Federal prosecutors accuse Bruno of collecting $3.2 million in commissions and gifts over 13 years in return for using his state influence to benefit a dozen labor unions and three private businessmen. He has pleaded not guilty and denounced the eight-count January indictment as a politically motivated fishing expedition."
Click here to read the entire post.
Monday, May 25, 2009
New York Times: Paterson to Propose a Broad Revision of Ethics Enforcement
The New York Times reports "Gov. David A. Paterson on Tuesday will propose a sweeping overhaul of the commission that enforces state ethics laws, including changes meant to shield the panel from political interference and give it jurisdiction over the Legislature, according to two administration officials involved in drafting the proposal. . . . At the heart of the plan are changes that would transform the ethics commission from a body dominated by appointees of the governor — he names 7 of its 13 members — to one that would in theory be less beholden to any one elected official. Mr. Paterson’s new Government Ethics Commission would have only five members, each appointed by a special screening panel rather than by elected officials, as is now the case."
Click here to read the entire post.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
A Tie In NY-20?
The Saratogian reports that "A nearly unprecedented tie in the congressional battle between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican Assemblyman Jim Tedisco is rapidly becoming more of a possibility as vote totals continue to fluctuate. . . . John Conklin, a spokesman for the Board of Elections, said that Gov. David Paterson would have two options if, once all the votes are counted, there is a tie. 'He can either do the entire process all over again in which the candidates would have to be re-nominated by their parties, Eric Sundwall would have an opportunity to get on the ballot again, and campaigns could once again start,' said Conklin. 'Or, because of the time in the year now, he could let it sit and let the process take place during the general election in the fall.'"
Click here to read the entire post.
|
 |