Good morning, here are Monday’s political law links, 4/8

TAX LOBBYISTS IN THE NEWS. The Times. “At least 28 aides who have worked for Mr. Baucus, Democrat of Montana, since he became the committee chairman in 2001 have lobbied on tax issues during the Obama administration — more than any other current member of Congress, according to the analysis of lobbying filings performed for The New York Times.”

FEC UPDATE. Roll Call. “For many election lawyers, the FEC is less a scapegoat than one of many players in a campaign finance game that has become impossibly complicated. Laws have been rewritten and knocked down — leaving many scratching their heads over just what the rules are.”

HEARING TOMORROW. Senate Judiciary Committee. “The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing of the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism entitled ‘Current Issues in Campaign Finance Law Enforcement’ for Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.”

OFA AND PACS. Politico. “Now, Smoot hopes to tap that Obama donor network for two separate causes: the new Organizing for Action nonprofit group and Senate Majority PAC, the Democratic super PAC tied to Majority Leader Harry Reid.”

CO: LOBBYIST WALKS. Story here. “A Colorado gun rights lobbyist who’s facing an ethics investigation for allegedly threatening a Republican lawmaker with negative mailers in her district has now denounced the committee looking into the charge as an ‘unconstitutional tribunal’ and is refusing to participate in the process.”

NJ: ITEMIZATION THRESHOLD IN THE NEWS. Story here. “Most states allow campaigns to keep secret only those donors who give $100, $50 or even less, according to a survey of election finance laws, and at least a half a dozen require them to make public the names of all donors. But in New Jersey, campaigns do not have to report any information about people who contribute $300 or less.”

NYC: PUBLIC FINANCING INVESTIGATION URGED. Story here. “So the bigger question is why Smith would go to such intricate and clumsy lengths to achieve Republican ballot status. What would make such shenanigans worth the risk?”

HAVE A GREAT DAY.

Comments are closed.