On December 15, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler announced his resignation. Wheeler will leave office on January 20, 2017, the date of the inauguration of president-elect Donald J. Trump.

Because Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel was not confirmed by the Senate for a new term and will not be with the FCC after January 3, until new commissioners are appointed, the FCC will have a 2-1 Republican majority on the day Trump is sworn in as president. The five-member FCC may only have three commissioners from a single political party. One of the responsibilities of the FCC is enforcement of broadcast political advertising.

On November 30, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows introduced bills allowing unlimited contributions to candidates from individuals. The SuperPAC Elimination Act of 2017 would also require disclosure of contributions of more than $200 to be made within 24 hours. The act has been introduced as Senate Bill 3488 by Cruz and House Resolution 6409 by Meadows.

In a press release, Cruz said, “Establishing unlimited contributions paired with immediate disclosure is the best way to promote transparency, eliminate the viability of SuperPACs going forward, and ensure that free speech is protected in the electoral process.” Cruz previously introduced a similar bill, the SuperPAC Elimination Act of 2014.

On Jan. 1, new changes to regulations concerning gifts for federal employees take effect.

Among the changes the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) made to the federal regulations include a non-binding recommendation employees “consider declining otherwise permissible gifts if they believe that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the employee’s integrity or impartiality as a result of accepting the gift.”

Additionally, federal officials who are required to be granted permission to attend “widely attended events” must now seek the permission in writing. The OGE declined to change the $20 threshold for accepting a gift.

Amendments to the rules made by the OGE were published on Nov. 18 in the Federal Register. The OGE press release is here.

Lobbyists hoping to work for President-elect Donald J. Trump will have to terminate their lobbyist registrations to be vetted for high-level positions, according to CNN.

Additionally, as an agreement to work with the next administration, officials leaving their future positions will be banned from lobbying for five years. Republican National Committee spokesman Sean Spicer says the goal of the ban is to make sure “people aren’t using the government to enrich themselves and using their service in government to do that.”

Trump’s transition team told CNN this will help fulfill Trump’s campaign promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington.

On August 11, the U.S. House clerk’s office erroneously sent out a group of emails to lobbyists informing them their contribution reports were late, according to the National Law Review. However, many of the registrants receiving the emails had timely filed their 2016 Mid-Year LD-203 contribution reports, which were due August 1. The Review reports it is unclear how many late notices were sent in error. The House clerk’s office is aware of the error.

U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown has been indicted on 22 federal charges, including fraud and conspiracy.

Brown, who represents the state’s 5th Congressional District, is accused of using a fake charity to solicit contributions and using those funds for personal gain. Investigators claim nearly $200,000 in charity funds were used to pay for events held by Brown and to pay taxes she owed.

If convicted, Brown could face up to 300 years in prison.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its audit of federal lobbying compliance for 2015. For the audit, the GAO reviewed a random sample of 80 quarterly disclosure reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2014 and the first and second quarters of calendar year 2015. They also reviewed random samples of 160 LD-203 reports for the year-end 2014 and midyear 2015 reports.

Among its findings, the GAO concluded 93 percent of filers of lobbying disclosure reports were able to provide documentation to support reported income and expenses, 85 percent filed the required federal political campaign reports, and 69 percent of the reported income and expenses were properly rounded to the nearest $10,000. The audit estimates at least 21 percent of all lobbying disclosure reports did not properly disclose formerly held covered positions.

The 54 page report, released on March 25, 2016, is titled “2015 Lobbying Disclosure Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements.”

On March 17, two bills were introduced into the U.S. Congress requiring the disclosure of political intelligence activities.

House Resolution 4809, The Political Intelligence Transparency Act, was introduced by Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter and Rep. John J. Duncan. This bill would subject individuals engaged in political intelligence to the same regulations and requirements as lobbyists, according to Slaughter’s press release. The bill amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) by requiring registration and reporting of activities and imposes revolving door restrictions for members of Congress, executive branch officials, and their staff. An exemption exists in the bill for members of the media.

Sen. Chuck Grassley introduced Senate Bill 2738, a different bill also amending the LDA to require disclosure of political intelligence activities.

Photo of the United States Capitol by Martin Falbisoner on Wikimedia Commons.

Today, U.S. Sen. Tom Udall is introducing the Federal Election Administration Act, a bill intended to replace the Federal Election Commission. The legislation is supported in letters to U.S. Senators from several reform groups, including the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Issue One, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Rootstrikers, and U.S. PIRG. According to the letter, a five-member Federal Election Administration will be created to enforce election laws and “will consist of a chairman and four other members, all of whom are to be appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate.” No more than two members of the agency can be from the same political party. The letter can be found here.

Q. For a number of years, our association has hired outside lobbying firms to lobby on our behalf. I was under the impression that because they registered and reported their lobbying activities for us, we didn’t need to register. Based on a recent conversation, I understand this may not be the case and we may need to register the association itself as a federal registrant. Can you tell me the guidelines in this regard?

A. Thanks for your question. This is a consideration that can often be overlooked when determining the need to register at the federal level. There is no specific exception outlined in the registration requirements that would negate an organization from having to register if it hires outside consultants that registers and reports their activity on behalf of their client. Essentially, if your organization meets the three registration thresholds, you need to register without regard for whether your outside consultants are also registered. The three criteria are:

1. An organization must have at least one employee who spends 20 percent or more of his or her time engaged in lobbying activities. This includes time working and coordinating with your consultant about your lobbying initiatives and also includes background work done in association with a lobbying effort;
2. That same employee must have two or more lobbying contacts. There is no time frame in which the two contacts have to occur. The two contacts could be a year apart from each other but once the second contact has been made, this threshold has been satisfied; and
3. An organization must spend $12,500 or more on lobbying activity during a three month period. Expenditures include payments made to outside consultants and membership organizations that are allocated toward lobbying efforts. In addition, compensation, expenses, and overhead associated with any and all lobbying activity that is occurring within the organization must be calculated for purposes of determining if this threshold has been met.

If your association meets these three requirements, you need to register and begin reporting your internal activities on a quarterly basis. Your outside consultants will also continue to report the activity in which they engage on your behalf.

You can directly submit questions for this feature, and we will select those most appropriate and answer them here. Send your questions to: experts@stateandfed.com.

(We are always available to answer questions from clients that are specific to your needs, and we encourage you to continue to call or e-mail us with questions about your particular company or organization. As always, we will confidentially and directly provide answers or information you need.) Our replies to your questions are not legal advice. Instead, these replies represent our analysis of laws, rules, and regulations.

Today, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) published its price index adjustments for expenditure limitations and lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold in the Federal Register. The lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold remains unchanged for 2016 and continues at the 2015 rate of $17,600. This threshold amount is adjusted annually. Federal law requires authorized committees of federal candidates, leadership political action committees (PACs), and political party committees to disclose contributions bundled by lobbyists and lobbyists’ PACs. Additionally, the FEC published its adjusted Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for political parties for 2016.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has reversed a lower court ruling and rejected the challenge from Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) concerning a Federal Election Commission (FEC) rule about reporting of electioneering communications or advertisements picturing or naming candidates within 60 days of an election. In doing so, the federal appeals court upheld the FEC rule requiring public reporting only of donors who earmark contributions for the ads.

Van Hollen and other campaign finance disclosure advocates argued the rule was too narrow and did not conform to a 2002 law prohibiting “soft money” in federal elections.

President Obama could soon issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose political campaign contributions, according to the New York Times. On January 19, White House officials said the president is “seriously considering” the order, as reported by the paper. The order has been pushed by many outside groups and by Democratic members of congress, who have in the past, and as recently as January 7th, presented the president with letters urging executive action.

Those opposed to an executive order argue, among other things, disclosure requirements encroach on free speech and are politically motivated. “The real goal of the disclosure proponents is to harass, intimidate and silence those with whom they disagree,” Blair Latoff Holmes, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is quoted as saying in the Times.

On January 19, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal arguing against a federal law banning political contributions to candidates from federal contractors. Last year, in Miller v. Federal Election Commission, formerly Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the law barring contractors from contributing to candidates, parties, and candidates’ and parties’ committees.

Plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of 52 U.S.C. § 30119(a)(1), which prohibits any vendors with contracts with the federal government from making political contributions to federal candidates or political parties. The plaintiffs had asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional as applied to individuals who have personal services contracts with federal agencies. Because federal workers who are not contractors may make federal political contributions while contractors performing the same work may not, the suit argued the law violates both the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

Photo of the United States Supreme Court by UpstateNYer on Wikimedia Commons.