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

 A little-noticed element of United Republic’s recent proposal – termed the American Anti-Corruption Act – seeks to impose elements of municipal pay-to-pay prohibitions on the federal lobbying community and the Congress they woo. While UR’s proposal has a certain emotional charm, one must be mindful of the myriad unintended consequences and compliance challenges that accompany all feel-good populist proposals.

First, the specifics. To counter a perceived lack of transparency in federal lobbying, the AACA proposes federal legislation amending the Lobbying Disclosure Act to expand the definition of the term “federal lobbyist” to capture greater “consulting” activities by insiders (referred to derisively by United Republic as “historical advisors” – cheap shot United Republic). The proposal on the table is to accomplish this by defining “lobbying” as

(1) Two lobbying contacts or providing strategic advice to lobbying efforts or directing or supervising the provision of strategic advice to lobbying efforts, and (2) 12 hours or more spent [per quarter?] engaging in lobbying activities.

Once the universe of “lobbyists” has been expanded, United Republic proposes implementation of a pay-to-play prohibition with severe restrictions on the ability of those lobbyists to contribute to, or raise money for, Members of Congress. The proposal calls for a $500 cap on lobbyist contributions, a ban on lobbyist bundling, and a requirement that lawmakers recuse themselves from committee hearings if they have received a contribution from a lobbyist or a lobbyist client that has a particular interest in that hearing. Finally, the proposal seeks to extend the “government contractor” ban on contributions to “the lobbyists, high-level executives and government relations employees and PACs of federal government contractors.”

It is certainly conceivable that legislation could be drafted to accomplish these objectives which would survive first amendment scrutiny. Less clear is whether such legislation – however well meaning and however grounded in legitimate concerns – makes for good public policy when one considers the compliance burden such legislation would impose.  The devil, as they say, is in the details. Does the definition of “high level executives” extend to spouses, siblings, pets, and anyone within two degrees of separation on LinkedIn? This blog is replete with examples of the challenges public interest “bans” impose on the regulated community when the rubber actually hits the road. 

This will be the battlefield in the coming year. Keep your head on a swivel out there.

Our latest contestants in this Sisyphean legal drama are a united band of like-minded law school professors looking to utilize the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a vehicle to counter the perceived negative impact of Citizens United. It appears this group has concluded that the imposing moniker “Committee on Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending” (the “Committee”) sounds more authoritative than “a united band of like-minded law school professors”. I think I agree with them on that. 

Under either moniker, this group has filed a petition for rulemaking with the SEC requesting draft regulations that require public companies to disclose to shareholders information regarding the use of corporate resources for political activities. The main gist of its petition – stricter SEC disclosure rules are necessary to ensure that corporate political activities are subject to the appropriate level of shareholder scrutiny in the wake of Citizen’s United. The Committee bases this conclusion on the following contentions:

First, it asserts that there is strong data indicating that public investors have become increasingly interested in receiving information about corporate political spending. To support this statement, the like-minded professors reference a 2006 Mason-Dixon poll indicating that 85% of shareholder respondents held that “there is a lack of transparency surrounding corporate political activity.” They also make note of a FactSet Research Systems analysis that indicates 50 out of 465 shareholder proposals appearing on public-company proxy statements in 2011 involved political spending issues.

Second, the Committee grounds its request in the belief that there is increasing momentum toward political spending transparency in the corporate community, as evidenced by the growing number of large public companies that have voluntarily adopted policies requiring disclosure of their political expenditures. To this point, and perhaps undercutting the urgency of their call to action, the professors highlight a study by the Center for Political Accountability indicating that nearly 60% of S&P 500 companies voluntarily provide shareholders with information regarding corporate spending on political activities.

Third and finally, the Committee bases its request on the idea that stricter SEC regulation of corporate political disclosure will lead to better corporate oversight and accountability mechanisms. At present, the professors assert, shareholders are unable to hold directors and officers accountable when they spend corporate funds on politics in a way that departs from the interests of the company. From the Committee’s point of view, this is due to the fact that public information regarding corporate political activity is out of the average shareholder’s reach (because it is either dispersed among too many regulatory bodies or not gathered at all). By requiring companies to disclose to one central entity (the SEC), it is the professors contention that there will be better information available to shareholders, and in turn, a subsequent improvement in corporate accountability.

Based upon these assertions, the Committee’s petition recommends that the SEC initiate a rulemaking project to adopt a series of regulations that mandate periodic disclosure of corporate political spending. Whether the SEC will take heed of the Committee’s request remains to be seen, but the petition itself has already begun to draw a mix of criticism and support from members of the business, legal, and academic communities.

For example, just a few days after the Committee’s petition was submitted, Keith Paul Bishop – the former California Commissioner of Corporations and an adjunct professor at the Chapman University School of Law – filed a response letter with the SEC refuting the professors’ contentions and requesting that no such rulemaking project be initiated by the Commission. In his response, Bishop contends that the Committee’s proposal will only add to the already extensive public disclosure burden faced by reporting companies and that it is unnecessary in light of the growing trend toward voluntary corporate disclosure. He also argues that it is not the role of the SEC to mandate corporate expenditure on public disclosure of political activity when statistics show that not even a third of 2011 proxy proposals on the subject enjoyed shareholder support.

In contrast, official comments filed by Mark Latham, founder of VoterMedia.org, and executives from the International Corporate Governance Network expressed strong support for the Committee’s request. Specifically, both comments revealed a common respect for the Committee’s belief that the disclosure of corporate political spending is necessary to help stave off abuse or the breach of business ethics by officers and directors.

The debate over who has the better side of the argument will rage on in the coming months as the SEC weighs the proposal and determines whether to take any action. One would have to expect the Obama Administration to lend its support to the Committee’s cause in it’s typical “no fingerprints here, I don’t know what you’re talking about” approach. The response from the corporate community will undoubtedly be more mixed and more direct, but it will be interesting to see what reaction emerges from groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and The Conference Board’s newly formed Committee on Corporate Political Spending (to which, BIAS ALERT, I am an advisor). Stay tuned….

Of significance to this blog, the resolution calls upon Congress to amend the Act to prohibit lobbyists from working their trade with any member of Congress for whom he or she has raised money in the past two years. The resolution also recommends a refinement of the definition of “lobbyist” to enhance registration and disclosure. With respect to contributions by such lobbyists, the resolution recommends mandating that a federally-registered lobbyist may not:

(a) lobby a member of Congress for whom he or she has engaged in campaign fundraising during the past two years;

(b) engage in campaign fundraising for a member of Congress whom he or she has lobbied during the past two years;

(c) make or solicit financial contributions to the reelection campaign of a member of Congress whom the lobbyist has been retained to lobby for an earmark or other narrow financial benefit; or

(d) enter into a contingent fee contract with a client to lobby for an earmark or other narrow financial benefit for that client.  

The proposal is likely to enjoy enhanced stature because of the high caliber, and bi-partisan bona fides of the task force issuing the underlying report recommending the changes this past January. Co-chairs to the ABA task force included former Republican FEC Commissioner Trevor Potter, noted Democratic attorneys Rebecca Gordon and Joseph Sandler, and former Reagan Solicitor General and current Harvard Law School professor Charles Fried. Nothing says “bipartisan” and “mood of America” like agreement between former counsel to Obama for America, John McCain 2008, the Gipper, and Stephen Colbert.

Already, the American League of Lobbyists (ALL) is responding to this shot across its bow with a promise to release a report of its own in response to the ABA’s proposals. ALL President Howard Marlowe has also signaled that the League may embark on an effort kill this portion of the proposal before it gains any traction.   As reported in Roll Call, Marlowe acknowledged “the significance of money in the policymaking process” represents a “significant” problem, but then pivots to signal an effort to kill the proposal with the backhanded compliment that while the leagues’ proposal will be similar, “[t]he ABA knows ‘that they are on the short end of the stick constitutionally when they’re doing that, and it’s not likely to pass muster.’” Marlowe also reached out to Politico to characterize the proposed contribution ban as “not practical at all.”

You have to give ALL props for trying, but there would appear to be far less constitutional infirmity in this proposal, which simply prohibits lobbyists from plying their regulated trade with those they have previously supported politically, than we have seen in other attempted bans on free association and expression covered and criticized by this blog in the past. 

There is an old legal saying that “good lawyers know the law, great lawyers know the judge.” The ABA’s proposal looks to refine lobbying effectiveness more towards “what you know” and less towards “who owes you.”  The ABA has captured the mood of the country with a sensible proposal that is as likely to enjoy as much legislative success as anything trying to make its way through an otherwise dysfunctional  legislative environment.

Financial Disclosures: Financial disclosure statements filed with the new Joint Commission on Public Ethics from elected officials will now be posted on the internet and the practice of redacting the monetary values and amounts reported by the filer will be ended. The Act also includes greater and more precise disclosure of financial information by expanding the categories of value used by reporting individuals to disclose the dollar amounts in their financial disclosure statements. The Act requires disclosure of the reporting individual’s and his or her firm’s outside clients and customers doing business with, receiving grants or contracts from, seeking legislation or resolutions from, or involved in cases or proceedings before the State as well as such clients brought to the firm by the public official.

In Albany, this is a controversial measure as a number of legislators – who will now be required – effective July 1, 2012 and upon potential penalty of $40,000 for failing to do so – to disclose the names of “outside clients and customers” – are attorneys who do not wish to disclose the identities of their clients. As one would expect, backlash from legal members of the Assembly was immediate and vociferous.

Increased Access to Who is Appearing Before the State and Why: The Act establishes a new database of any individual or firm that appears in a representative capacity before any state governmental entity.

Additional Disclosures for Registered Lobbyists: The bill expands lobbying disclosure requirements, including the disclosure by lobbyists of any "reportable business relationships" of more than $1,000 with public officials. It also expands the definition of lobbying to include advocacy to affect the "introduction" of legislation or resolutions, a change that will help to ensure that all relevant lobbying activities are regulated by the new Joint Commission.

A New Joint Commission on Public Ethics: This is potentially the most significant development of the newly proposed legislation. The new Joint Commission on Public Ethics will replace the existing Commission on Public Integrity with jurisdiction over all elected state officials and their employees, both executive and legislative, as well as lobbyists. Among other restrictions, no individual will be eligible to serve on the Joint Commission who has within the last three years been a registered lobbyist, a statewide office holder, a legislator, a state commissioner or a political party chairman. Commissioners will be prohibited from making campaign contributions to candidates for elected executive or legislative offices during their tenure.

The Joint Commission will have jurisdiction to investigate potential violations of law by legislators and legislative employees and, if violations are found, issue findings to the Legislative Ethics Commission, which will have jurisdiction to impose penalties. Significantly, if the joint commission reports such a violation to the Legislative Ethics Commission (with full findings of fact and conclusions of law), that report must be made public along with the Legislative Ethics Commission’s disposition of the matter within strict timeframes. The Joint Commission will have jurisdiction to impose penalties on executive employees and lobbyists. Any potential violations of federal or state criminal laws will be referred to the appropriate prosecutor for further action.

This provision has proven controversial almost immediately. In order to initiate an investigation, the new Joint Commission will require that two appointees of the same party in a given branch assent. This means, as many have already pointed out, that in theory the commission could vote 11-3 to take action without anything being done. Similarly, the New York Times noted that “commissioners appointed by the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, could effectively block investigations of any Democrat in the Legislature, while commissioners appointed by the Senate majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, a Republican, would have similar power over investigations of any Republican.”

Overall, however, it appears that most public interest groups believe that the newly proposed Joint Commission will strike the right balance between unbiased investigation and the prevention of politically motivated “witch hunts” against the party out of power.

Forfeiture of Pensions for Public Officials Convicted of a Felony: Certain public officials who commit crimes related to their public offices may have their pensions reduced or forfeited in a new civil forfeiture proceeding brought by the Attorney General or the prosecutor who handled the conviction of the official.

Clarifying Independent Expenditures For Elections: The Act requires the state board of elections to issue new regulations clarifying disclosure of Independent Expenditures.

Increased Penalties for Violations: The Act substantially increases penalties for violations of the filing requirements and contribution limits in the Election Law, and provides for a special enforcement proceeding in the Supreme Court. The bill also increases penalties for violations of certain provisions of the state’s code of Ethics that prohibits conflicts of interest.

Without a doubt, this legislation represents sweeping change that must be carefully studied, and compliance prepared for, by all doing business in New York.

Now, if only we could get the Governor to introduce a “Clean Up Washington Act”.