September 28, 2017 •
OGE Legal Advisory Issued: Anonymous Contributions to Federal Employees’ Legal Defense Funds Prohibited
Today, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) issued a Legal Advisory memo explicitly stating the OGE’s view anonymous contributions to legal defense funds of federal employees are prohibited. Legal Advisory LA-17-10 specifically refers to OGE Informal Advisory Opinion 93×21 (1993), […]
Today, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) issued a Legal Advisory memo explicitly stating the OGE’s view anonymous contributions to legal defense funds of federal employees are prohibited.
Legal Advisory LA-17-10 specifically refers to OGE Informal Advisory Opinion 93×21 (1993), which found employees who received anonymous donations would “be unable to favor the anonymous donors.” The new Legal Advisory memo acknowledges that shortly after the Informal Advisory Opinion was issued, the agency began “advising, and is continuing to advise, that the instruments establishing legal defense funds include a clause stating that ‘contributions shall not be accepted from anonymous sources.’”
The new memo reiterates the OGE’s position given in an interview by the head of the OGE with Politico earlier this month. The interview was made in reaction to an OGE note on the 1993 opinion that had been changed earlier this year to say the opinion’s original applicability had not changed.
Critics of the note change had said it opened the door up to lobbyists and other prohibited sources funding legal defenses for employees currently working in the White House.
September 18, 2017 •
OGE Director: Anonymous Contributions to Federal Employees’ Legal Defense Funds Prohibited
On September 15, the head of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) said in an interview with Politico anonymous contributions to legal defense funds of federal employees are prohibited. David Apol, the acting director of the OGE, told Politico the […]
On September 15, the head of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) said in an interview with Politico anonymous contributions to legal defense funds of federal employees are prohibited. David Apol, the acting director of the OGE, told Politico the policy had not changed, even though the note on a guidance document had been changed earlier this year.
In 1993, the OGE issued an opinion letter holding a fund established for the benefit of a government employee to pay the employee’s legal expenses, while administered by a person having no connection with the employee’s official duties, could accept anonymous contributions. The OGE guidance letter is not legally binding.
Walter Shaub, then director of the OGE, instructed his staff in May of this year to add a one-sentence note to the top of the document signaling the OGE’s long standing internal practice had diverged from the formal guidance, according to Politico. The note read in all caps and a red font, “NOTE: SOME STATEMENTS IN THIS OPINION ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT OGE INTERPRETATION AND PRACTICE.”
Subsequently, after Shaub left the OGE, the document’s note was changed to read, again in all caps and a red font, “NOTE: THE PRIMARY FINDING ABOUT THE LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF 18 U.S.C. §209 TO PAYMENTS MADE FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S LEGAL EXPENSES HAS NOT CHANGED. HOWEVER, BECAUSE EACH ANALYSIS IS VERY FACT-SPECIFIC, AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIALS SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OGE DESK OFFICER BEFORE ADVISING EMPLOYEES ON THIS TOPIC.”
Critics of the note change had said this opens the door up to lobbyists and other prohibited sources funding legal defenses for employees currently working in the White House.
September 14, 2017 •
OGE: Federal Employee’s Legal Defense Funds May Possibly Accept Anonymous Contributions
A change of a note regarding an Office of Government Ethics (OGE) guidance document from 1993 may open the door to allowing anonymous contributions, including from prohibited sources such as lobbyists, to government employees’ legal defense funds. In 1993, the […]
A change of a note regarding an Office of Government Ethics (OGE) guidance document from 1993 may open the door to allowing anonymous contributions, including from prohibited sources such as lobbyists, to government employees’ legal defense funds. In 1993, the OGE issued an opinion letter holding a fund established for the benefit of a government employee to pay the employee’s legal expenses, while administered by a person having no connection with the employee’s official duties, could accept anonymous contributions. The OGE guidance letter is not legally binding.
Walter Shaub, then director of the OGE, instructed his staff in May of this year to add a one-sentence note to the top of the document signaling the OGE’s long standing internal practice had diverged from the formal guidance, according to Politico. The note read in all caps and a red font, “NOTE: SOME STATEMENTS IN THIS OPINION ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT OGE INTERPRETATION AND PRACTICE.”
Subsequently, after Shaub left the OGE, the document’s note was changed to read, again in all caps and a red font, “NOTE: THE PRIMARY FINDING ABOUT THE LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF 18 U.S.C. §209 TO PAYMENTS MADE FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S LEGAL EXPENSES HAS NOT CHANGED. HOWEVER, BECAUSE EACH ANALYSIS IS VERY FACT-SPECIFIC, AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIALS SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OGE DESK OFFICER BEFORE ADVISING EMPLOYEES ON THIS TOPIC.”
Critics of the note change say this opens the door up to lobbyists and other prohibited sources funding legal defenses for employees currently working in the White House. Richard Lucas, once counsel for a Clinton legal defense fund, told Politico, “Not knowing the source is a recipe for disaster.”
March 14, 2012 •
American League of Lobbyists Writes to President Obama
The organization connects the president’s anti-lobbyist position with an increase in unregistered lobbying.
Howard Marlowe, president of the American League of Lobbyists, recently sent a letter to President Obama asking him to change his tone toward lobbyists and the lobbying profession. The organization is making a connection between the administration’s anti-lobbyist rhetoric and the rising number of unregistered lobbyists.
Whether they are calling themselves consultants or advisers, Marlowe points out that these people are lobbying and their activity thus goes on without any oversight:
“Those who are not registered are protected from discovery by the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism. Our primary concern with incentivizing deregistration is that the public loses knowledge of who these people are lobbying, who is paying for their advocacy work, how much they are being paid, and what issues are they being paid to work on.”
For full news coverage, please read “Lobbyists to Obama: Tone down the rhetoric!” by Byron Tau in Politico.
Photo of the White House by UpstateNYer on Wikipedia.
September 29, 2011 •
U.S. Congress, Twitter, and American 18- to 29-Year-Olds
Politico’s Report and an AP survey
Today, we get two views of the U.S. Congress and its use of Twitter.
Politico published “Survey: Congress uses Twitter more than millennials” by Tim Mak, which says members of Congress have taken to using Twitter more than American people between the ages of 18 and 29. They say 81% of Congress uses Twitter, while 75% of millennials have adopted its use.
An Associated Press survey, which provided those figures, made the comment that in their estimation, members of Congress could better use the social media platform as an opportunity for genuine interaction with that demographic and less as a social media megaphone for their messages.
June 16, 2011 •
Obama and Google
Did the Obama re-election campaign get a special deal from Google?
Politico reported today that questions are being raised over whether Google has given President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign a special advertising deal using a new online advertising program scheduled to debut this fall.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee said it contacted Google when it saw an Obama ad and inquired about creating their own ad with the company. They claim a Google representative told them the Obama campaign received a “special deal” and that they would have to wait for the beta version to participate. Google denies the ad in question was using their new advertising system and said the Obama campaign received no such special deal.
Here is the Politico article: “Google denies special deal for Barack Obama” by Byron Tau and Ben Smith.
State and Federal Communications, Inc. provides research and consulting services for government relations professionals on lobbying laws, procurement lobbying laws, political contribution laws in the United States and Canada. Learn more by visiting stateandfed.com.