Election

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

Since the landmark Citizens United decision in 2010, super PACs have become a fixture of U.S. political campaigns. But despite the initial anticipated boom in corporate influence in elections, most super PAC funding to date has come from wealthy individuals, closely-held corporations, and nonprofits, not from large for-profit corporations.

However…

Continue Reading Corporate and Industry “Mega PACs”: The Next Frontier for Super PACs

In the 2024 election cycle, super PACs spent a reported $2.7 billion at the federal level, up from roughly $1.4 billion in 2022. And in 2025, super PACs poured tens of millions into state and local races, including the New Jersey gubernatorial race and the New York City mayoral…

Continue Reading Forming and Operating Super PACs: A Practical Guide for Political Consultants in 2026

Following an announcement last month that the White House intends to deploy the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”) to investigate persons with foreign ties that “foment political violence,” the FARA Unit of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) quietly (and maybe inadvertently) published and then unpublished 17 new advisory opinions regarding…

Continue Reading DOJ Posts (then Takes Down) Seventeen New Advisory Opinions Regarding the Foreign Agents Registration Act

On September 16, 2025, Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Dr. Ralph de la Torre’s effort to bar criminal or civil enforcement of the Senate’s resolutions holding him in civil and criminal contempt of Congress.  In bringing his pre-enforcement challenge, Dr. de la Torre alleged that any effort to pursue civil or criminal sanctions in connection with the resolutions would entail further “punishment” for his having invoked his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (“HELP”) Committee regarding the bankruptcy of Steward Health Care.  Judge McFadden’s sweeping rejection of this challenge underscores the limited ability of congressional subpoena targets to seek relief in court and highlights the formidable protection the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause provides to congressional investigators.Continue Reading Federal Court Dismisses Pre-Enforcement Challenge to HELP Committee Subpoena, Underscoring Limited Options for Congressional Subpoena Targets

Federal contractors, grantees, borrowers, and others receiving federal funds face a variety of restrictions on their use of those funds for political purposes, including for lobbying. A new presidential memorandum issued last week by President Trump highlights one of those restrictions, 31 U.S.C. § 1352, also known as the…

Continue Reading Administration Targets Lobbying by Federal Grantees with New Presidential Memorandum

Shareholder proposals on political issues—particularly lobbying spending disclosure and campaign finance issues—have been a common part of the proxy landscape for some time now. This proxy season, proposals seeking greater transparency around corporate political spending had surprising success compared to the past. Especially given this development, companies should be aware…

Continue Reading Corporate Political Disclosure Shareholder Proposals Draw Surprising Support

Employees in the investor relations departments of hedge fund managers and private equity firms typically do not consider themselves “lobbyists.” But state and local regulators sometimes have a different view. This article, published in the Hedge Fund Law Report, explains the types of investor relations activities that could…

Continue Reading When Investor Relations Become Procurement Lobbying

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 2024

The results of the 2024 U.S. election are expected to have significant implications for AI legislation and regulation at both the federal and state level. 

Like the first Trump Administration, the second Trump Administration is likely to prioritize AI innovation, R&D, national security uses of AI, and U.S. private sector investment and leadership in AI.  Although recent AI model testing and reporting requirements established by the Biden Administration may be halted or revoked, efforts to promote private-sector innovation and competition with China are expected to continue.  And while antitrust enforcement involving large technology companies may continue in the Trump Administration, more prescriptive AI rulemaking efforts such as those launched by the current leadership of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) are likely to be curtailed substantially.

In the House and Senate, Republican majorities are likely to adopt priorities similar to those of the Trump Administration, with a continued focus on AI-generated deepfakes and prohibitions on the use of AI for government surveillance and content moderation. 

At the state level, legislatures in California, Texas, Colorado, Connecticut, and others likely will advance AI legislation on issues ranging from algorithmic discrimination to digital replicas and generative AI watermarking. 

This post covers the effects of the recent U.S. election on these areas and what to expect as we enter 2025.  (Click here for our summary of the 2024 election implications on AI-related industrial policy and competition with China.)

The White House

As stated in the Republican Party’s 2024 platform and by the president-elect on the campaign trail, the incoming Trump Administration plans to revoke President Biden’s October 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (“2023 AI EO”).  The incoming administration also is expected to halt ongoing agency rulemakings related to AI, including a Department of Commerce rulemaking to implement the 2023 AI EO’s dual-use foundation model reporting and red-team testing requirements.  President-elect Trump’s intention to re-nominate Russell Vought as Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) suggests that a light-touch approach to AI regulation may be taken across all federal agencies.  As OMB Director in the prior Trump Administration, Vought issued a memo directing federal agencies to “avoid regulatory or non-regulatory actions that needlessly hamper AI innovation and growth.”Continue Reading U.S. AI Policy Expectations in the Trump Administration, GOP Congress, and the States