With Election Day fast approaching, corporations face increasing pressure from both internal and external forces to make legal decisions about political activities. This can be a fraught area of law, with little understood, highly technical regulatory issues that vary significantly across jurisdictions. Corporate counsel should be mindful of common—and sometimes
Continue Reading Avoiding Pitfalls on the Path to Election Day: Common Political Law Risks for Corporations in Election SeasonKimberly Railey
Kimberly Railey is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. She is a member of the Election and Political Law Practice Group, advising corporations, PACs, nonprofits, and individuals on compliance with federal and state lobbying, campaign finance, and government ethics laws. She also represents and counsels clients in matters before government agencies and Congress.
Prior to law school, Kimberly was a political reporter for a nonpartisan publication in Washington, DC.
California Passes New Pay-to-Play Regulations for Contributions by Government Contractors and Others
California recently passed a series of new regulations affecting its “pay-to-play” laws that limit political contributions by state and local government contractors and others involved in proceedings on contracts, licenses, permits, and other “entitlements for use” in the state. These regulations implement changes to the law that took effect this…
Continue Reading California Passes New Pay-to-Play Regulations for Contributions by Government Contractors and OthersWhen is a Treasurer Personally Liable for PAC Violations?
The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) recently answered a common question for those involved in operating a federal PAC: When is the treasurer personally liable for violations of the rules on recordkeeping and reporting? In doing so, the FEC highlighted the importance of external oversight of PAC operations, and the value of periodic audits of the PAC that can identify problems before they grow.
The case involved a non-connected PAC affiliated with the Ute Indian Tribe (“Tribe”). The Tribe hired a consultant who claimed extensive knowledge of the FEC’s intricate rules. The Tribe allowed the PAC to operate outside its routine financial controls because the consultant told them the PAC would operate under the FEC’s recordkeeping and reporting system.
Trouble began immediately, with the FEC’s Reports Analysis Division flagging problems with 75% of the reports the PAC filed in the three years after it began receiving funds in 2016. As one measure of visible distress, the PAC amended one report five times. Because no one at the Tribe was overseeing the PAC’s correspondence with the FEC—which were available on the FEC website—the Tribe was unaware of these warning signs. The volume and magnitude of the filing errors ultimately triggered an FEC audit, which the treasurer also concealed from the Tribe, according to the complaint.Continue Reading When is a Treasurer Personally Liable for PAC Violations?
California Raises Campaign Contribution and Gift Limits for 2023-2024
The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) adopted on Thursday higher political contribution limits and public officer gift limits for the 2023-2024 political cycle. The new limits take effect on January 1, 2023.
Contribution Limits
Under the new limits, an individual, business entity, or committee/PAC can contribute $5,500 per election to candidates for state legislature, up from $4,900. This means that individuals may generally give $11,000 per candidate per cycle, because the primary and general are considered separate elections. The same limit also applies to a candidate for local office unless the locality has adopted its own limits. The limit on contributions from an individual, business entity, or committee/PAC to a candidate for governor also increased, from $32,400 to $36,400 per election. The limit on contributions to PACs that contribute to candidates increased from $8,100 to $9,100 per year, though PACs can also have a separate, noncontribution account with no limit.
The following chart has additional details on the limits for individuals in 2023 and 2024:
An individual, business entity, or committee/PAC may contribute to…
Governor | $36,400 | per election |
Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Controller, Supt. of Public Instruction, Insurance Commissioner, and Board of Equalization | $9,100 | per election |
Senate and Assembly | $5,500 | per election |
City and County Candidates if no locally enacted limit | $5,500 | per election |
CalPERS/CalSTRS | $5,500 | per election |
Committee (PAC), other than a Political Party, that contributes to State Candidates | $9,100 | per calendar year |
Political Party Account for State Candidates | $45,500 | per calendar year |
Small Contributor Committee | $200 | per calendar year |
Committee Non-Contribution Account | No Limit | per calendar year |
Continue Reading California Raises Campaign Contribution and Gift Limits for 2023-2024
FEC Commissioners Issue New Guidanceon Donor Disclosure for Groups Paying forPolitical Advertisements
Trade associations, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, other outside groups that pay for
political advertisements, and their donors now have more answers to long-running questions
regarding when donations to these groups are publicly reportable. After postponing
consideration of the issue during its previous meeting, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”)
approved Wednesday an interim final rule on donor disclosure. The interim rule amends the
federal regulations that describe when outside groups that pay for independent expenditures–
advertisements that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate–
must publicly disclose on FEC reports the names of their donors. The amended rule will take
effect 30 legislative days after the FEC transmits the new rule to Congress, which the FEC
anticipates will be September 30, 2022.
The interim rule brings the FEC’s regulations into harmony with a 2018 court decision that
invalidated a long-standing regulation, 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(e)(1)(vi), requiring outside groups to
disclose only those donors who contributed at least $200 to the outside group “for the purpose
of furthering the reported independent expenditure.” The interim final rule strikes the regulation
entirely. However, the FEC added a note to 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(e)(1) that clarifies the remaining
portions of the regulation and the relevant statute are still in effect.
In the wake of the 2018 decision, many questions remained about when these groups must
disclose donor names. The revised regulation itself was not meant to answer those questions; it
was simply meant to harmonize regulations on the books with existing court decisions. Some of
these questions were answered by an unusual guidance document the Commission posted to
its website after the 2018 decision. That guidance, which remains in effect, provides that groups
(other than political committees) that pay for independent expenditures must disclose the names
of donors of over $200 who made contributions “earmarked for political purposes” during the
reporting period.Continue Reading FEC Commissioners Issue New Guidanceon Donor Disclosure for Groups Paying forPolitical Advertisements
FEC Commissioners Issue New Guidance on Donor Disclosure for Groups Paying for Political Advertisements
Trade associations, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, other outside groups that pay for political advertisements, and their donors now have more answers to long-running questions regarding when donations to these groups are publicly reportable. After postponing consideration of the issue during its previous meeting, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) approved Wednesday an interim final rule on donor disclosure. The interim rule amends the federal regulations that describe when outside groups that pay for independent expenditures — advertisements that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate — must publicly disclose on FEC reports the names of their donors. The amended rule will take effect 30 legislative days after the FEC transmits the new rule to Congress, which the FEC anticipates will be September 30, 2022.
The interim rule brings the FEC’s regulations into harmony with a 2018 court decision that invalidated a long-standing regulation, 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(e)(1)(vi), requiring outside groups to disclose only those donors who contributed at least $200 to the outside group “for the purpose of furthering the reported independent expenditure.” The interim final rule strikes the regulation entirely. However, the FEC added a note to 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(e)(1) that clarifies the remaining portions of the regulation and the relevant statute are still in effect.
In the wake of the 2018 decision, many questions remained about when these groups must disclose donor names. The revised regulation itself was not meant to answer those questions; it was simply meant to harmonize regulations on the books with existing court decisions. Some of these questions were answered by an unusual guidance document the Commission posted to its website after the 2018 decision. That guidance, which remains in effect, provides that groups (other than political committees) that pay for independent expenditures must disclose the names of donors of over $200 who made contributions “earmarked for political purposes” during the reporting period.
But when is a contribution “earmarked for political purposes”? If a donor provides funds for get-out-the-vote activities, is that donation “earmarked for political purposes”? If a donor makes a contribution following a presentation from an outside group describing its political activities, is the donation reportable? What about a donation intended to further a hard-hitting issue advertisement whose purpose, at least in part, is to defeat a particular candidate? These questions are all left unaddressed in the interim final rule and the website guidance.Continue Reading FEC Commissioners Issue New Guidance on Donor Disclosure for Groups Paying for Political Advertisements
GAO Report Highlights Trends in Lobbying Disclosure Act Compliance and Enforcement
The 2021 report from the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) offers new details on the landscape of Lobbying Disclosure Act (“LDA”) compliance and enforcement. The report is based on random audits of lobbyists’ filings and analysis of enforcement by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (“USAO”).
The report…
Continue Reading GAO Report Highlights Trends in Lobbying Disclosure Act Compliance and Enforcement
New California Rules Target Amplification of Online Advertising
In the digital age, it has become common to accuse opponents of propping up their online presence through paying influencers, buying followers or likes, or of being supported by bots. A California law new this year is looking to shed light on at least some of that activity.
The California…
Continue Reading New California Rules Target Amplification of Online Advertising