Photo of Andrew Garrahan

Andrew Garrahan

Andrew Garrahan represents and counsels clients at the intersection of law and politics. He guides them through both regulatory compliance issues and government investigations on matters including state and federal campaign finance, ethics, lobbying, and corruption, as well as in congressional investigations.

Andrew’s prior career in political fundraising gives him a unique perspective on the challenges faced by his clients, which include corporations, candidates, government officials, political and nonprofit organizations, and private individuals.

Andrew’s counseling and advisory practice includes:

guiding clients on structuring of and compliance for their state and federal lobbying and grassroots advocacy campaigns;
representing campaigns, Super PACs, corporations, trade associations, and individuals on the applicability of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and state campaign finance law;
counseling on Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) registration and disclosure, and its interaction with the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA);
helping companies comply with state and federal ethics laws, particularly on gifts and conflicts of interests, and domestic anticorruption; and
auditing corporate political law compliance practices.

Andrew’s investigations and defense work includes:

representing clients in Congressional investigations, including responding to letter requests and subpoenas;
preparing company officers and other individuals for testimony in Congressional investigative hearings;
defending clients in Department of Justice matters related to campaign finance, lobbying, ethics, and public corruption; and
representing clients before the FEC and state campaign finance, lobbying, and ethics regulators.

Late Friday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the Fourth Circuit’s decision setting aside the FCC Media Bureau’s guidance on entitlement to the lowest unit charge (“LUC”) for certain political ads placed on broadcast TV and radio.  See our prior post about this issue here.  Notably

Continue Reading Supreme Court Action Revives FCC Media Bureau’s Political Ad Guidance

On August 25, 2026, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit set aside guidance by the FCC’s Media Bureau stating that two types of political advertising were entitled to the favorable “lowest unit charge” (“LUC”) rate: ads paid for as “party coordinated expenditures,” meaning ads paid for by a party in coordination with a federal candidate, and ads placed by joint fundraising committees involving a federal candidate. This question had become particularly salient after the Supreme Court’s decision in June that struck down limits on party coordinated expenditures, allowing unlimited party spending in coordination with candidates, as we explained here. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling was in response to a challenge to the Media Bureau’s Public Notice by four Democratic candidates for federal office. The ongoing litigation has a direct and immediate impact on broadcasters and political advertisers, but its broader significance may lie in what the Fourth Circuit said about judicial review of bureau-level FCC actions.

Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Sets Aside FCC Media Bureau Guidance on Lowest Unit Charge; FCC Asks the Supreme Court to Step In

In an August 2026 Unified Agenda entry, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) stated that it intends to complete its long-running effort to revise the regulations implementing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”). The National Security Division (“NSD”) stated that it is considering a final rule that would adopt “many

Continue Reading DOJ Signals it will Move Forward with Significant Revisions to FARA Regulations

State regulators are beginning to grapple with the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC (“NRSC”).  Minnesota may have provided the first clear example of how the ruling could reshape state campaign finance regimes. On June 30, the Supreme Court struck down the federal limits on coordinated party expenditures, holding that political parties have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts in coordination with candidates and rejecting the argument that such limits are necessary to prevent corruption. Although the Court did not directly address limits on party-to-candidate contributions or in-kind contributions, the decision immediately raised questions about the constitutionality of such limits, particularly in jurisdictions that, unlike federal law, do not distinguish between coordinated expenditures and in-kind contributions. Minnesota’s response suggests that answers may be arriving sooner than expected.

Continue Reading Early Post-NRSC Domino Falls: Minnesota Stops Enforcing Limits on Certain Party In-Kind Contributions

In a major decision today, the Supreme Court in NRSC v. FEC struck down longstanding limits on “coordinated party expenditures” that restricted the amounts political parties could spend in coordination with federal candidates. With this decision, national party committees and the federal accounts of state parties can now spend unlimited

Continue Reading Supreme Court Decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission Empowers Political Parties, Calls Other Restrictions into Question

As the election season intensifies, companies face a rapidly evolving landscape of regulatory, compliance, and reputational considerations. With heightened scrutiny on political engagement, lobbying, campaign finance, and communications, organizations must be prepared to navigate complex and fast-moving legal requirements.

Drawing on our deep experience in election and political law, public

Continue Reading Covington Launches Election Year Toolkit

Covington is pleased to announce that it has revised and updated its comprehensive 50-state survey of political laws for 2026.

Corporations, trade associations, non-profits, other organizations, and individuals face significant penalties and reputational harm if they violate federal or state laws governing corporate and personal political activities, the registration of

Continue Reading Covington Announces Political Law Survey (2026 Edition)

Covington is pleased to announce that it has revised and updated its comprehensive 50-state survey of pay-to-play laws for 2026.

Companies doing business with the federal government or state and local governments and companies operating in regulated industries are subject to a dizzying array of “pay-to-play” rules. These rules effectively

Continue Reading Covington Announces Pay-to-Play Survey (2026 Edition)

More than one billion dollars were spent in 2024 elections supporting or opposing state and local ballot measures. With high-profile and contentious issues expected to be on the ballot, such as congressional redistricting, AI regulation, minimum wage increases, and more, that number promises to be even larger in 2026. As

Continue Reading Covington’s Guide to Ballot Measures

The 2025 proxy season saw significant developments with respect to proposals calling on companies to disclose information about their political contribution activity and lobbying activity, including an increase in support for political contribution proposals. That stronger support, particularly against the backdrop of reduced support for socially-oriented shareholder proposals, may lead

Continue Reading Is a Political Law Shareholder Proposal Under Your Tree? Strategies for Responding in the New Year