On January 2, 2025, the Department of Justice published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(“NPRM”) soliciting public comments on potential amendments to the Department’s regulations
regarding the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”). The regulatory amendments proposed
by the Department are significant, and they would take the statute in a substantially
New Law Appears to Restrict Defense Contractors from Retaining Consultants Who Lobby for Chinese Military Companies
Under a newly enacted law, beginning June 30, 2026, defense contractors risk losing all future contracts with the Defense Department if they engage outside consultants that lobby for certain Chinese companies. On December 23, 2024, President Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2025
Continue Reading New Law Appears to Restrict Defense Contractors from Retaining Consultants Who Lobby for Chinese Military CompaniesFEC Year in Review 2024
With a game-changing advisory opinion (AO 2024-01), 2024 started out with a bang at the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”). Other consequential opinions, enforcement actions, and regulations continued in the following months, challenging the notion that the divided Commission cannot find consensus.
In this alert, we highlight the FEC’s major
Continue Reading FEC Year in Review 2024A Primer for Navigating the Presidential Appointee Vetting and Confirmation Process
Following the decisive election on November 5, the process of selecting and vetting individuals to fill the second Trump administration’s key appointed positions is quickly shifting into high gear. For those tapped for consideration, the decision to enter the process may be one of the most significant decisions of their
Continue Reading A Primer for Navigating the Presidential Appointee Vetting and Confirmation ProcessSEC Enforcement Order Highlights Far Reach of Pay-to-Play Restrictions
August 23, 2024, Covington Alert
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this week issued a cease-and-desist order that demonstrates the SEC pay-to-play rule’s expansiveness and the SEC’s readiness to enforce it to the letter, even when it is virtually impossible that a political contribution could have influenced a government entity’s
Continue Reading SEC Enforcement Order Highlights Far Reach of Pay-to-Play RestrictionsCovington Releases Updated Survey of Federal and State Campaign Finance, Lobbying, and Gift Rules (2023 Edition)
Covington annually publishes a detailed survey of state campaign finance, lobbying, and gift rules. Now, for the first time, Covington is releasing an updated survey that details federal campaign finance, lobbying, and gift rules, in addition to those of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 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 lobbyists, lobbying reporting, or the giving of gifts or items of value to government officials or employees. To help organizations and individuals comply with these rules, this detailed survey—now 327 pages—summarizes the campaign finance, lobbying, and gift rules adopted by the federal government, all 50 states, and the District of Columbia.
Newly added federal sections cover the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Congressional gift rules, executive branch gift rules, and the Federal Election Campaign Act. Information is provided in a table question and answer format intended to address common questions with practical guidance. Continue Reading Covington Releases Updated Survey of Federal and State Campaign Finance, Lobbying, and Gift Rules (2023 Edition)
Tips for Responding To Corporate Political Disclosure Shareholder Proposals
February 16, 2023, Covington Alert
The 2023 proxy season is underway for public companies and their investors. Corporate secretaries, lawyers, and executives are actively engaged in the SEC’s shareholder proposal process. Consistent with recent proxy seasons, a significant number of companies are receiving proposals calling for new or enhanced political disclosures. Although these proposals have been around for some time, recent contentious election cycles, debate over hot-button issues, including the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and increased investor focus on ESG matters (as well as criticism of such focus) have cast an ever-increasing focus on disclosure of corporate political expenditures.
Effectively responding to shareholder proposals on this issue is essential. Although shareholder proposals are non-binding, proposals that are approved – or that fail but with a substantial level of support – will give rise to an expectation that the company will address the subject matter of the proposal in the months following the annual meeting. A company’s failure to act on a shareholder proposal that is approved or that receives strong support can result in reputational damage to the company and could signal to shareholders and proxy advisory firms that the board is not responsive to a matter of significant shareholder concern. This can give rise to further shareholder proposals and potential votes against some or all of the company’s directors at the next annual meeting. In some circumstances, failure to effectively respond to a shareholder proposal could lead activist investors to threaten or initiate a proxy contest in advance of the next annual meeting.
In recent years, shareholders have submitted hundreds of proposals aimed at encouraging companies to voluntarily disclose more information on their websites with regard to their corporate political spending and processes. In Covington’s 2015 guide on “Responding to Corporate Political Disclosure Initiatives,” we noted that “although some have argued that these efforts are primarily intended to force companies to scale back their lobbying and political activities—not to promote transparency—they continue unabated.” The pace and breadth of these proposals has expanded in the ensuing years, with a significant number of shareholder proposals focused on two topics—political contributions and lobbying expenditures. According to the Center for Political Accountability (“CPA”), its model political disclosure resolution was used 22 times each in the 2021 and 2022 proxy seasons, resulting in six votes in excess of 50 percent in 2021 and two in 2022. We expect, and have begun to see, a similar number of politically-focused shareholder proposals this proxy season. As of December 2022, for example, CPA reported that its shareholder partners have “filed 25 proposals in the 2023 proxy season, with more expected over the coming months.”Continue Reading Tips for Responding To Corporate Political Disclosure Shareholder Proposals
Updated and Expanded: Covington Announces 2023 Edition of Pay-to-Play Rule Survey
For over a decade, Covington has published a detailed survey of the “pay-to-play” laws of all 50 states. Now, for the first time, Covington is updating the survey with a new section covering federal pay-to-play rules, in addition to those of the 50 states and many cities and counties. This
Continue Reading Updated and Expanded: Covington Announces 2023 Edition of Pay-to-Play Rule SurveyThe Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA): A Guide for the Perplexed
*This guide was originally published in 2018 and we have updated it periodically.
January 31, 2023, Covington Guide
In 1938, Congress enacted the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”), requiring “foreign agents” to register with the Attorney General. As amended over the years, it applies broadly to anyone who acts on behalf of a “foreign principal” to, among other things, influence U.S. policy or public opinion. Until recently, it was a backwater of American law—and a very still backwater at that, with just seven prosecutions between 1966 and 2016.
That now has changed. Like the once obscure Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prosecutors revived from hibernation some years ago, FARA is receiving its close-up. Prosecutors have brought more FARA prosecutions in the last several years than they had pursued in the preceding half century. In-house lawyers have scrambled to bone up on this famously vague criminal statute, at a time when the nation’s tiny bar of experienced FARA lawyers can still hold its meetings in the back of a mini-van.
While cases related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation are the most salient examples, the renewed focus on foreign agents actually began prior to the Mueller investigation and has continued long after the Special Counsel closed up shop. A significant uptick in audits of registered foreign agents by the FARA Unit (the Department of Justice office that administers FARA), followed by significant staffing changes in the FARA Unit, and then noticeably more aggressive interpretations of the statute in advisory opinions and informal advice from the FARA Unit, all have signaled a sea change.Continue Reading The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA): A Guide for the Perplexed
SEC Commissioner Says It’s “Past Time” To Reform Overly “Blunt” Pay-to-Play Rule
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) last week announced settlements with four investment advisory firms regarding alleged violations of the SEC’s pay-to-play rule, illustrating that federal regulators continue to aggressively pursue such cases. The rule at issue, Rule 206(4)-5 (“the Rule”), prohibits investment advisors from, among other things, receiving compensation from certain government entities for two years after a person affiliated with the investment advisor makes a covered campaign contribution to an official of the government entity. While the involved firms did not admit or deny the allegations in the settlement orders, an examination of the cases is instructive in assessing the current landscape of SEC pay-to-play rule enforcement. Together, the four settlements are noteworthy in two major respects: (1) the circumstances of the underlying contributions that highlight the wide-reaching application of Rule 206(4)-5; and (2) the fact that one of the SEC Commissioners issued a sharp dissent that expressed deep concern about the breadth of the Rule.
The settlements involved covered associates at four different firms making contributions to four different recipients: an unsuccessful candidate for Mayor of New York City; the incumbent Governor of Hawaii ; an unsuccessful candidate for Governor of Massachusetts; and to a then-candidate for Governor of California. In two cases, the firms managed public pension money and, in the other two, the firms managed state university endowments, an often overlooked category of government entity investors.
While the SEC Rule is intended to prevent fraud, it seems highly unlikely that any of the contributions at issue in these four cases could have influenced state investment decisions:
- All four investment advisory firms had preexisting business relationships with the relevant government entities before the prohibited contributions were made and no new business was solicited after the contributions.
- One of the donors was not even a covered associate at the time of the contribution.
- Only one of the four prohibited recipients was an incumbent officeholder at the time of the contribution.
- Two of the four recipients failed to win election to the offices they sought.
- Two of the cases involved situations where the donor either received a refund or requested a refund.
- The contribution amounts were a drop in the bucket in proportion to the tens of millions of dollars raised in these elections – three cases involved a single $1,000 contribution and the fourth involved a contribution of $1,000 and another $400.
Continue Reading SEC Commissioner Says It’s “Past Time” To Reform Overly “Blunt” Pay-to-Play Rule