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

On Wednesday, June 29, the Securities and Exchange Commission unanimously approved the final text of a new rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 directed at preventing pay to play practices by investment advisers. In response to 250 comment letters, with divergent views on the issue, the Commission revised certain provisions of the rule it proposed last year but largely kept intact its initial proposal of regulations designed to ensure that investment advisors are prohibited from using campaign contributions to steer municipal investment business. Oddly enough, the Commission received no comment letters from the class of plan beneficiaries that it sought to protect with the proposed rule, although two public interest groups strongly supported the proposed revisions.

The new rule has three key elements:

1) It prohibits investment advisors from providing advisory services for compensation—either directly or through a pooled investment vehicle—for two years, if the advisor or certain of its executives or employees have made a political contribution to an elected official in a position to influence the selection of the advisor;

2) It prohibits advisory firms and certain executives and employees from soliciting or coordinating campaign contributions from others (a practice referred to as “bundling”) for any elected official in a position to influence the selection of the adviser. It also prohibits solicitation and coordination of payments to political parties in the state or locality where the adviser is seeking business; and

3) It prohibits investment advisors from paying third parties, such as placement agents, from soliciting a government client on behalf of the investment adviser, unless that third party is an SEC-registered investment advisor or broker/dealer subject to similar pay to play restrictions.

Finally, the rule contains a catch-all, “don’t let the lawyers find a loophole” provision, which prohibits acts done indirectly, which if done directly, would result in a violation of the rule (such as old favorites like funneling contributions through an investment adviser’s attorneys, spouses or affiliated companies).

Continue Reading...

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

As we have previously analyzed on the blog, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC has sparked both election law commentary over the limits of government efforts to restrict political speech as well as a much celebrated one-way fight between branches of government at the State of the Union Address. Now, the third branch of government is about to get in on the act as Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) are set to unveil “responsive” federal legislation containing federal pay-to-play prohibitions with the apparent support of at least one Republican, Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.). This legislation was recently released and is called the "DISCLOSE ACT". Please click here to view the summary.

The Citizens United opinion expressly recognized the First Amendment rights of corporations and labor unions to participate in the political process through the funding of independent communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of clearly identified candidates. Couched as it was in Constitutional principles, there are limits to what Congress can do to overturn the opinion. The Senate and House Democratic leadership appears to have concluded that if the prohibition of such speech is unconstitutional, the preferred response will be to require disclosure of corporate and union independent expenditures to the FEC and to shareholders and further to require corporate CEOs to appear on expenditures with the same “stand by your ad” messages we have learned to love in campaign advertising. The bill will also seek to impose additional limitations on the abilities of foreign individuals and companies to influence political speech by U.S. corporations.

Continue Reading...

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

I received an email from a law student who posed a question about the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The student asked:

"After the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it seems to me that pay-to-play laws across the nation will now serve even more of a purpose as corporations are now free to contribute to the political process (although not directly to candidates).

In saying that, I was wondering about your take on the matter. Am I missing something, or does Citizens really mean what I think it does?"

It’s a very good question because, while Citizens United doesn’t directly affect state pay-to-play issues, its impact is certain to be felt this legislative session. States and municipalities have already been struggling to respond to voter angst about the political process - and recent election results combined with breathless media reporting is certain to exacerbate that angst.

In a nutshell, Citizens United is a landmark ruling for corporations, unions and groups of individuals interested in participating in any aspect of the federal political debate. The ruling is particularly relevant because it is predicated upon a recognition that corporations, tax exempt groups and unions have a First Amendment right to use unlimited corporate funds for independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of federal candidates. For those interested in reading more about the decision, a link to our firm’s client alert is attached here.

The ruling does not directly impact state pay-to-play laws because it expressly left intact existing federal and state limitations on campaign contributions and upon the ability of federal candidates to “coordinate” their activities with outside groups. It would be an error, however, to conclude that the Supreme Court’s ruling will not affect state legislative action on pay-to-play simply because the ruling doesn't affect contributions, coordination or any of the quid pro quo issues that pay-to-play laws are generally looking to capture. If anything, it is more likely that Citizens United is going to cause a number of state legislatures and municipal bodies to feel they need to pass tougher pay-to-play laws to counter the perceived invitation for corporations and unions to overwhelm the political process.

It is likely that such concerns are somewhat exaggerated. Rather than being incentivized by this enhanced recognition of rights to engage in pay-to-play politics, if anything, corporations and unions now have the opportunity to exert much more leverage with politicians simply by threatening to fund independent expenditures either for or against candidates depending on how responsive they are to the corporate or union cause. These groups no longer have to make contributions to exert leverage - they can do just fine on their own, thank you. As was seen just last week when a group of 40 corporate executives notified congressional leaders that they were tired of being solicited for campaign contributions, the ruling has already begun to change the political landscape away from the candidates and parties and towards the “independent expenditure”.

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