Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Pay to Play Law Blog

Articles, resources, insights on pay to play regulations on the federal and state level

open menu close menu

Pay to Play Law Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Categories
    • Categories
    • Alabama
    • Alaska
    • California
      • CalPERS
    • Citizens United
    • Colorado
    • Commodities Futures Trading Commission
    • Compliance
    • Connecticut
    • District of Columbia
    • Exempt Organizations
    • Federal Contractors
    • Federal Government
    • Federal Lobbyists
    • First Amendment
    • Florida
    • General
    • Georgia
    • Hawaii
    • Illinois
    • In The News
    • Indiana
    • Kentucky
    • Maryland
    • Michigan
    • Missouri
    • Montana
    • Nevada
    • New Jersey
    • New Mexico
    • New York
    • North Carolina
    • Ohio
    • Pennsylvania
    • Philadelphia
    • Rhode Island
    • SEC
    • Texas
    • Transparency

Taking Stock of The STOCK Act. . . . Wither “Political Intelligence”?

By Benjamin Keane
February 10, 2012
  • Transparency
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

Proponents of ethics reform and increased political transparency in Washington don’t often see reform proposals pass through Congress by overwhelming margins, and rarely does anyone bemoan an excess of “political intelligence” in Washington, but that’s exactly what happened on Capitol Hill this past week. While the reform community can’t quite be sure what version of reform will survive the ongoing tug of war between the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, it is clear that those trading on “inside political knowledge” are clearly in the transparency crosshairs.

If you are a consultant, a lobbyist, a law firm, or simply a person with inside knowledge of how Washington thinks, this post pertains to you (but you already know that, of course).

Two relevant reform proposals emerged in the wake of growing public outrage generated by CBS’ “Sixty Minutes” and other reports highlighting the ability of elected officials and their staff to trade on otherwise “non-public” information for personal investment gains. Near universal public outrage is about the only catalyst for Congressional action these days but, despite bipartisan grass-roots calls for reform, no singular solution is ever presented by Congress…. Instead, as many might have predicted, Congress produced two competing visions of what problems need to be addressed and how to go about it.

The Senate set forth its vision last Thursday when it passed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (“STOCK”) Act of 2012 in a lopsided, 96-3 roll call vote. In addition to tackling the fundamental problem not so subtly referenced in its title, the STOCK Act seeks to implement a number of aggressive ethics rules and revisions to the Lobbying Disclosure Act aimed at further restricting legislative and executive branch conflicts of interest and mandating more transparency in the area of non-lobbyist political consulting.

Most significantly for “Establishment Washington”, included within the Senate proposal’s ban on “insider trading” is a controversial obligation that all “political intelligence” consultants register and disclose their activities as if they were federal lobbyists, and a contentious legislative fix to the poorly-written “honest services fraud” statute that was recently-deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in contexts outside of bribery and kickback schemes.

The language of the Senate bill would reach individuals and entities who engage in “political intelligence contacts” for the purpose of obtaining information from officials of the executive and legislative branches of government “for use in analyzing securities or commodities markets, or in informing investment decisions.” Any organization employing or retaining an individual who engages in one such contact would be required to register and report in the same fashion as if they were a lobbyist-registrant under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA).  As such, they would be subject to the same quarterly and semi-annual disclosure requirements that lobbyist-registrants currently meet.

On a quarterly basis, via a Form LD-2, “political intelligence” registrants would need to disclose the “issue areas” their organizations are discussing, the legislative body or federal agencies they are contacting, the employee(s)/consultant(s) that engage in such contacts, and the total expenses incurred with regard to the intelligence-gathering activities. On a semi-annual basis, via a Form LD-203, political intelligence registrants would also need to disclose political contributions and contributions to events honoring or recognizing covered executive or legislative branch officials. Such contribution reports would be required of both individual consultants and their employing organizations, effectively opening up a new segment of the Washington political class to public scrutiny of its campaign and non-campaign donations. Certain limited exemptions to these disclosure requirements do exist under the Senate version of the bill, but they are not nearly as broad as those carved out under the LDA for current lobbyist-registrants.

Reform and transparency are all well and good, but these requirements proved too much for the House (and legions of the suddenly activated “political intelligencia”) to accept.

Yesterday morning, the House followed the Senate’s lead by passing its own amended version of the STOCK Act by a similarly enormous voting margin – 417 to 2 to be exact – but without the requirement that non-lobbyist “political intelligence” consultants register and report their activities. Likewise, the House version of the bill refrains from amending the honest services fraud statute to allow for its use in non-bribery and non-kickback scenarios.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) articulated the House rationale when he commented that the Senate’s disclosure requirements were something “outside of what we do” and that they were not part of the original purpose of the STOCK Act legislation. Also criticized was the “vagueness” of the political intelligence provisions as pertains to anything that happens in Washington.

Thus, in as sure an effort towards “assisted suicide” as Congress has in its arsenal these days, the amended House STOCK Act calls for a federal study of the “political intelligence” industry for the purpose of making future legislative recommendations and additionally prohibits lawmakers from receiving access to initial public offerings of stock. THAT always results in action, right?

Looking to the future, many believe that the political intelligence requirements of the Senate’s STOCK Act are yet another reformulation of recent efforts attempting to compel increased disclosure, and thus disincentivize, political spending by corporations and wealthy individuals. This blog has discussed similar efforts by the SEC, Congress, the ABA, and the Obama Administration in the past. And as such, it is easy to understand the negative reaction that has come from these House Members and many on K Street. Particularly when coupled with the drastic effect the expansion of registration and reporting requirements would have on business activities in and around Washington, D.C moving forward.

In the end, it will be interesting to see whether the overarching goal of banning “insider trading” by Members of Congress and congressional staff becomes collateral damage in the battle over establishing political intelligence registration and reporting requirements. Stranger things have happened on Capitol Hill. Anyone selling information or access in Washington needs to be closely watching Congress in the coming weeks to see how this tug of war ends.

But you already know that.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Securites Exchange Commission, STOCK Act, transparency
Benjamin Keane

About Benjamin Keane

Ben Keane is a Partner in the Washington, DC and Atlanta, GA offices of Dentons and co-head of the firm’s Political Law, Ethics and Disclosure Team. Mr. Keane focuses his practice on the representation of elected officials, political candidates, PACs, SuperPACs, political parties, corporations, non-profit organizations and other entities with regard to federal, state and local election law, campaign finance, lobbying, pay-to-play, and ethics matters. He regularly counsels businesses, trade associations and other non-profits on the establishment and maintenance of successful political law compliance frameworks. Additionally, Mr. Keane assists clients across the country with political law investigation and audit matters involving federal, state and local government authorities, and frequently counsels presidential nominees, appointees and other federal officials on confirmation and ethics matters.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Transparency

Deficit “Super Committee” Transparency – Will We Get to See the Budgetary Sausage in Production?

By Benjamin Keane
  • In The News
  • Ohio
  • Transparency

City of Cincinnati, Ohio Passes Ban on Developer Donations in Wake of Past Corruption Concerns

By Benjamin Keane and Michael Pfeifer
  • California
  • Federal Government
  • Transparency

Pay to Play Updates – April 2023

By Benjamin Keane, Michael Zolandz, C. Randall Nuckolls, Michael Pfeifer, and Merrill Weber

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site