Good morning. Here’s some of the political law news from this weekend and this morning.
The lawmaker-charity connection
Is the topic of Eliza Newlin Carney’s latest in National Journal.
“There’s an awful lot of pressure from the lobbyist side to … do things that ingratiate the lobbyist with the member of Congress, and giving money to one’s favorite charity is one way to do that,” said tax expert Marcus S. Owens, a lawyer with Caplin & Drysdale. He added: “I don’t know of any member of Congress who has the time, the inclination, or the training to maneuver around those ethical and legal pitfalls.”
State PACs and 2012
The Times examines the Romney network of state PACs here.
The financing Mr. Romney has used, leaning on not only his Alabama PAC but also on similar vehicles in other states, allows him to tiptoe around federal campaign finance limits. It also illustrates how potential candidates willing to be creative with the nation’s Rube Goldberg-like campaign finance system can manipulate it to their greatest benefit — and Mr. Romney has been by far the most assertive in this approach among those believed to be weighing bids for the Republican nomination.
What Rep. Rangel can teach us
The Times explains. It has to do with preserving the Office of Congressional Ethics.
More on texting donations
The Post discussed how texting charitable donations works here.
A few candidates have campaign debt and they’re holding fundraisers to help pay it off. The Hill.
“Lobbying firms to watch in the next Congress”
A public policy manager and an associate manager. More here.
Money chase in Chairman’s race
Cino filed papers to create “Maria for Chairman” Friday with the FEC, a move that will let her raise and spend money in a campaign to take over the national party.
Times taking names on DISCLOSE
This Times editorial discusses the DISCLOSE Act this morning.
Alaska native corporations and the Alaska senate race
Is the topic of this article.
If Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s re-election survives her opponent’s challenges, she will in no small measure owe her historic write-in victory to the U.S. Supreme Court’s most contentious decision this year — a ruling she herself described as troubling, but which led to massive Native corporation spending on her behalf.
Saturday’s political law morning report