Pay to Play Law Blog : Pay to Play Lawyer & Attorney : Bribery, Campaign Contributions

Through its recent decision in Ognibene v. Parkes, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a constitutional challenge of New York City’s political contribution limits on “lobbyists” and others having business dealings with the City (a/k/a the “pay-to-play” rules), finding that such limits do not violate First Amendment free speech rights.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Cue the obligatory training montage and iconic theme music…Like its best known fictional sports hero, the City of Philadelphia is looking to pick itself up off the ethical mat and take a first step toward regaining the public trust when it comes to political decision making and government action. Battered and bruised by an ongoing ethics investigations against its former mayor, allegations of improper political activity on the part of city council staff, and a sordid history of pay-to-play corruption, it appears as if Philadelphia and its Board of Ethics are finally working to change the culture of politics in the City of Brotherly Love, one reform idea at a time.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Conference Board was kind enough to share the following link to portions of a webinar they hosted a few weeks back on best practices for corporate political spending. It is about 20 minutes long and focused on some of the issues those tasked with pay-to-play compliance lay awake worrying about (yes, those people do exist).

I hope it is helpful and entertaining (hey, one out of two wouldn’t be bad either).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last year (coincidentally, almost to the day), this blog was all atwitter (you’re following us, right?) about CalPERS’ announcement that it would now require contractors to reveal whether they are using placement agents to seek business with the pension fund. Now, one year later, CalPERS has announced that its governing board approved new corporate governance principles calling upon corporations to detail all yearly political and charitable donations -- including those made through trade associations and tax-exempt groups.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Stefan C. Passantino & Benjamin P. Keane

If it takes three times to make something a habit, it is safe to say that “pay-to-play” legislation in the State of California is getting to be a bit habitual.  For the third time in as many years, the California State Legislature has decided to ripple the “pay-to-play” regulatory waters by passing an “urgency” measure designed to clarify and modify the state’s existing restrictions on investment managers and investment placement agents who do business with California’s public employee pension funds, such as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS).  The new piece of legislation, Senate Bill 398 (SB 398), was signed into law on October 9, 2011 by Governor Jerry Brown, and is designed to complement two other recently-passed bills regulating the activities of pension fund investment managers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Stefan C. Passantino and Benjamin P. Keane

Whether you agree with Justice Brandeis that sunlight is the “best of disinfectants” or with former American League of Lobbyists president Dave Wenhold that “too much sunlight causes cancer”, it should be readily apparent to the readers of this blog that public officials of all stripes have increasingly begun to listen to the chorus of voices calling out for more transparency in all levels of government. At PaytoPlayLawBlog, we often write about how the push for greater transparency at the federal, state and local levels is affecting the operation of government, as well as the interaction of the public with government officials. As strictly objective, rational observers (ahem), it seems to us that disclosure alone generally trumps both inaction and punitive regulation in the pay-to-play space. Over the past month or so, we have come to see new evidence of this welcome push for openness at the federal level, particularly with regard to the activities of the newly-formed Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (or the so-called Deficit “Super Committee”).      

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We’ve noted  before that New Jersey remains the hands-down leader in pay-to-play ordinance proliferation.  Until Governor Christie (or someone at the state level) succeeds in implementing a uniform statewide protocol for procurement efforts such as the one proposed here, New Jersey will extend its dubious distinction of having more varieties of pay-to-play legislation than its Turnpike has exits. (Think I’m kidding?  Read on.  It’s not even close).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last February, we posted an entry flagging potential concerns arising from the SEC’s new pay-to-play rules for investment advisors as applied to presidential candidates. Admittedly, at the time we were talking about Governors Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels, but the same holds true now for Texas Governor Rick Perry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Stefan Passantino & Ben Keane

It has been almost exactly 19 months since the Supreme Court handed down its controversial decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, but the plot continues to thicken as those favoring mandatory corporate disclosure of political activities look for a non-judicial fix to the ruling. 

To date, the fields are littered with detritus of failed efforts at identifying a mechanism that compels corporations and wealthy individuals to disclose all exercise of their newly-recognized First Amendment freedoms. This blog has previously reported on failed efforts to mandate such disclosure in Congress, as well as the Obama White House’s proposed executive order circumventing both Congress and the Supreme Court.  To achieve these same goals, groups such as Democracy21 and the Campaign Legal Center have promoted changes to the Internal Revenue Code, while the American Bar Association has encouraged Congress to make pertinent amendments to the Lobbying Disclosure Act. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link