Citizens United v. FEC

The court issued an Errata for its recent opinion in Citizens United v. FEC.   No, it wasn’t that sweeping.  It reads, in part:

The third sentence of the second full paragraph on page 11 is stricken. This sentence read: “Whether the Supreme Court will ultimately adopt that line as a ground for holding the disclosure and disclaimer provisions unconstitutional is not for us to say.”

The sentence contained a footnote citing Majors v. Abell, 361 F.3d 349, 356–57 (7th Cir. 2004) (Easterbrook, J., dubitante).   Dubitante?  “Having doubts (used of a judge who expresses doubt about but does not dissent from a decision reached by a court).”

“This is your life…”

Veteran lobbyists got guidance regarding HLOGA’s new 20 year lookback:

Section 4 of the LDA was amended to provide for additional disclosure of previous government service. The law now requires disclosure regarding whether a lobbyist served as a covered executive branch official or a covered legislative branch official in the 20 years before the date on which the individual first acted as a lobbyist on behalf of the client. This requirement applies to registrations having an effective date of 01/01/2008 or later: For any new registrant/client relationship requiring a registration which has an effective date of January 1, 2008 or later, government employment information going back 20 years is required. Registrants do not have to amend their pre-2008 registration information to reflect this additional disclosure requirement in reference to lobbyists listed in those reports.

Amended LDA Guide