Political Activity Law/Political Law/Election Law

Day: July 7, 2010

  • Another $240 million criminal fine in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case

    We’re at $480 million in criminal fines and counting in related Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases.  The latest Department of Justice Press release is available here.

    Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V., (Snamprogetti) has agreed to pay a $240 million criminal penalty to resolve charges related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for its participation in a decade-long scheme to bribe Nigerian government officials to obtain engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts, the Department of Justice announced today. The EPC contracts to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities on Bonny Island, Nigeria, were valued at more than $6 billion.

  • The latest on French campaign finance law

    A Frenchman can give more to a candidate in France than a U.S. citizen can give to a Federal candidate in the U.S.?   Just one of the interesting questions raised in this Post story about questions facing President Sarkozy’s alleged acceptance of a large cash contribution from L’Oreal billionaire Liliane Bettencourt.

    Here’s more from France24.  The story says one limit is 7,500 euros per year, which is about $9,500 in today’s dollars.  But it’s not clear if that’s the limit for parties or individuals.  The Post story says that that’s the party limit.  In 2007, the U.S. limit on contributions from an individual to a Federal candidate was $2,300 per election (the primary and general are separate elections).

  • Wading through SEC’s new pay to play rules?

    The Federal Election Commission has a new “tip for treasurers” on the SEC’s new rules.  The tip?  Don’t call the FEC, call the SEC.

    Covington’s got an overview of the new rules here.

    The rules are available here.  Not sure they made the Federal Register, yet.

    Footnote 154 speaks to inaugural and transition expenses.  The footnote also explains

    that “contributions” are not intended to include independent “expenditures,” as that term is defined in 2 U.S.C. 431 & 441b (the federal statutory provisions limiting contributions and expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations invalidated by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) (holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment)). Indeed, it is our intent that, under the rule, advisers and their covered associates “are not in any way restricted from engaging in the vast majority of political activities, including making direct expenditures for the expression of their views, giving speeches, soliciting votes, writing books, or appearing at fundraising events.” Blount, 61 F.3d at 948.