This website uses cookies. For more information please contact us or consult our privacy policy.
Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.
We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.
This page has been added to your binder.
November 17, 2016, Covington Alert
With Election Day 2016 in the books, the political world turns to the transition of power and the January 20, 2017 Inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence. With the swearing in of the new President and Vice President will come the traditional balls, parties, and receptions. The inauguration and related events are costly, and paid for largely with private funds. Individuals, businesses, and other organizations donating to the inauguration, hosting related events, or giving out tickets to either should remember that they are operating in a highly regulated space. We profile three common compliance issues below. Persons interested in this alert may also wish to review our alerts on the Presidential Transition and the political appointee vetting process.
November 10, 2016, Covington Alert
With the election over, the process of selecting and vetting individuals to fill the next administration’s key appointed positions is quickly shifting into high gear. For those who are called to serve in such positions, the decision to enter the process may be one of the most important and life-changing decisions they will make. Accordingly, it is critical for anyone considering an appointed position to understand the presidential appointment vetting process from the start.
June 9, 2016, Covington Alert
On Friday, three Federal Election Commission (FEC) Commissioners provided a clear description of their understanding of the facts and law that led them to oppose opening an investigation into whether Murray Energy coerced its employees into making political contributions. Statement of Reasons of Chairman Petersen and Commissioners Hunter and Goodman, FEC MUR 6661. While clarity in the law is always to be commended, the standard they use to define when a contribution is coerced is narrow and will certainly allow conduct that many employers now reject as excessive. As with two earlier decisions in which three Commissioners voted not to pursue enforcement actions against employers who compelled employees to attend a candidate’s rally or to waive signs or make calls supporting a candidate, it is clear that the FEC will not be an effective barrier to employers pressuring employees to engage in many kinds of political activity. As Lindsay Burke and I noted in a recent article in Corporate Counsel Magazine, there remain state employment law issues to consider, but the signal from this recent FEC case is unmistakable.