On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Corporate Political Activities 2018: Complying with Campaign Finance, Lobbying and Ethics Laws

Released on: Oct. 12, 2018
Running Time: 14:06:25

Please note: this program does not offer legal ethics credit.

As we head into the 2018 election season, developments in federal and state lobbying, campaign finance and ethics rules are making corporate compliance more challenging than ever. Led by high-level officials from the Federal Election Commission, Congressional ethics committees, state ethics agencies, corporate compliance officers, and private practitioners, this program’s expert faculty will walk you through the latest issues. From federal and state lobbying and pay-to-play laws to practical strategies for developing and running an effective compliance program, this program is a must-attend for attorneys and others representing political contributors, PACs, lobbyists, corporations, trade and membership associations, unions and other political interest groups and activists.

Lecture Topics [Total time 14:06:25]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks* [00:04:00]
    Kenneth A. Gross, Jason D. Kaune, Jan Witold Baran
  • FECA and Political Committees [01:38:15]
    Jan Witold Baran
  • Political Activities by Corporations [01:26:05]
    Kenneth A. Gross
  • Working with the Federal Election Commission [00:36:35]
    Jan Witold Baran, Debbie Chacona, Hon. Ellen L. Weintraub
  • Networking Luncheon and Featured Speaker: Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine [00:49:00]
    Richard L. Hasen
  • Federal Lobbying Disclosure Laws [00:46:24]
    Kenneth A. Gross
  • Federal Ethics Rules [00:58:35]
    Jan Witold Baran, Deborah S. Mayer
  • Foreign Nationals, Tax-Exempt Organizations, and Independent Expenditures [00:56:46]
    Caleb P. Burns, Jason D. Kaune, Robert K. Kelner
  • Corporate Compliance and Ethics Programs [01:30:55]
    Jason D. Kaune, Wesley D. Bizzell, Terri J. Lee, Lydia Wylie, Joanne Lendway McMahon
  • Criminal and Civil Enforcement of Election and Ethics Laws [01:00:25]
    Jan Witold Baran, Michael J. Sullivan, Hon. Ellen L. Weintraub, Robert K. Kelner
  • Federal and State Pay-to-Play Laws and Government Contracts [01:13:20]
    Elli Abdoli, Ki P. Hong, Joanne Lendway McMahon
  • State and Local Campaign Finance Laws [01:02:00]
    Steven I. Berlin, Jason D. Kaune, Michael J. Sullivan
  • State and Local Lobbying, Ethics and Gift Laws [01:00:10]
    Steven I. Berlin, Jason D. Kaune, David Bainbridge
  • California Ethics Regulator Roundtable Discussion [01:03:55]
    Stacey Fulhorst, LeeAnn Pelham, Galena West, Jason D. Kaune

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Overview of Federal Campaign Finance: Contribution and Expenditure Limitations
    Jason D. Kaune, Michael A. Columbo
  • Political Contributions and Expenditures by Corporations
    Jan Witold Baran, Caleb P. Burns
  • Federal Political Activity (June 15, 2018)
    Kenneth A. Gross, Matthew Bobys, Shayla Key Parker, Ki P. Hong
  • Political Activity by Trade Associations (June 15, 2018)
    Matthew Bobys, Shayla Key Parker, Ki P. Hong, Kenneth A. Gross
  • Political Tax Considerations
    James W. Carson, Chip Nielsen, Jason D. Kaune
  • Federal Election Commission, “Best Practices to Avoid Pitfalls”
    Debbie Chacona
  • Richard L. Hasen, Keynote Address: Judging the Political and Political Judging: Justice Scalia as Case Study, Chicago-Kent L. Rev., 2018, Forthcoming
    Richard L. Hasen
  • Wiley Rein LLP, The Lobbying Disclosure Act (as amended by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007)
    Jan Witold Baran, Caleb P. Burns
  • Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (PowerPoint slides)
    Dana K. McCallum
  • Gifts and Travel from Lobbyists, Employers of Lobbyists and Clients of Lobbyists: Congress and the Executive Branch (June 2018)
    Jan Witold Baran, Caleb P. Burns
  • House and Senate Ethics Rules—An Overview (PowerPoint slides)
    Deborah S. Mayer
  • Political Activity by Foreign Nationals (June 15, 2018)
    Matthew Bobys, Ki P. Hong, Shayla Key Parker, Kenneth A. Gross
  • The Foreign Agents Registration Act: A New Wave of Enforcement
    Zachary G. Parks, Alexandra K. Langton, Robert K. Kelner
  • Covington & Burling LLP, The Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”): A Guide for the Perplexed (January 11, 2018)
    Robert K. Kelner
  • Political Activity by Banks (June 15, 2018)
    Shayla Key Parker, Kenneth A. Gross, Ki P. Hong, Matthew Bobys
  • Political Activity by Federal Contractors (June 15, 2018)
    Kenneth A. Gross, Shayla Key Parker, Ki P. Hong, Matthew Bobys
  • Foreign National Activity (PowerPoint slides)
    Rebecca H. Gordon
  • Overview of the Political Law Compliance Program for Altria Group, Inc., and Its Companies (June 29, 2018)
    Wesley D. Bizzell
  • Corporate Political Spending: Policies and Practices, Accountability, and Disclosure (Second Edition, The Conference Board Committee on Corporate Political Spending)
    Wesley D. Bizzell
  • Compliance Design Tips for the Public Policy and Political Arenas, Compliance & Ethics Professional, December 2016
    Wesley D. Bizzell
  • Altria’s Political Law Compliance Program (June 29, 2018) (PowerPoint slides)
    Wesley D. Bizzell
  • Enforcement of Corporate Political Activities: A Survey of Election Law Matters 2017–2018
    Jan Witold Baran, Caleb P. Burns
  • Covington & Burling LLP, Handling Investigations of Members of Congress and Congressional Staff: A How-To Guide for Chiefs of Staff (February 28, 2018)
    Robert K. Kelner
  • Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, Press Release, Schools Organization & OCPF Resolve Charter School Ballot Question Funding Source Issue (September 11, 2017)
    Michael J. Sullivan
  • Disposition Agreement between the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) and the Families for Excellent Schools Advocacy Committee (FESA Committee) (September 8, 2017)
    Michael J. Sullivan
  • Newsletter: OCPF Reports (Spring 2018)
    Michael J. Sullivan
  • Pay-to-Play Laws: An Introduction and Overview
    Jason D. Kaune, Elli Abdoli
  • Pay-to-Play Laws (June 15, 2018)
    Ki P. Hong, Kenneth A. Gross, Shayla Key Parker, Matthew Bobys
  • State Campaign Finance Laws
    Jason D. Kaune, Evann Whitelam, Chip Nielsen
  • State and Local Campaign Finance Laws
    Steven I. Berlin
  • State Lobby and Gift Laws
    Chip Nielsen, Jason D. Kaune, Joel Aurora
  • State and Local Lobbying, Gift and Ethics Laws
    Steven I. Berlin
  • Recent Changes and Significant Developments in Lobbying
    Galena West
  • State Government Ethics Laws
    Elli Abdoli, Joel Aurora, Michael A. Columbo
  • Overview of FPCC and Enforcement Cases
    Galena West
  • Complaint Investigation, San Francisco Ethics Commission
    LeeAnn Pelham
  • San Francisco Ethics Commission Enforcement Regulations
    LeeAnn Pelham
  • San Diego Ethics Commission Annual Report 2017
    Stacey Fulhorst

Presentation Material

  • Political Committees and Corporate PACs
    Jan Witold Baran
  • Political Activities by Corporations
    Kenneth A. Gross
  • Judging the Political and Political Judging: Justice Scalia as Case Study
    Richard L. Hasen
  • Federal Lobbying Disclosure Laws
    Kenneth A. Gross
  • Executive Branch Gift Rules
    Jan Witold Baran
  • House and Senate Ethics Rules:An Overview
    Deborah S. Mayer
  • Tax-Exempt Organizations, Independent Expenditures, and Super PACs
    Caleb P. Burns, Jason D. Kaune
  • FARA and Foreign National Involvement in US Elections
    Robert K. Kelner
  • Corporate Compliance and Ethics Programs
    Wesley D. Bizzell, Jason D. Kaune, Terri J. Lee, Joanne Lendway McMahon, Lydia Wylie
  • Criminal Enforcement
    Robert K. Kelner
  • Criminal and Civil Enforcement of Election and Ethics Laws
    Michael J. Sullivan
  • Federal and State Pay-to-Play Laws and Government Contracts
    Ki P. Hong
  • Pay to Play: Updates & Recent Developments
    Elli Abdoli
  • State and Local Campaign Finance Laws
    Steven I. Berlin, Jason D. Kaune, Michael J. Sullivan
  • State and Local Lobby, Gift and Ethics Laws
    David Bainbridge, Steven I. Berlin, Jason D. Kaune
  • California Ethics Regulators Roundtable
    Stacey Fulhorst, Jason D. Kaune, LeeAnn Pelham, Galena West
Co-Chair(s)
Kenneth A. Gross ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Jason D. Kaune ~ Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP
Jan Witold Baran ~ Wiley Rein LLP
Speaker(s)
Elli Abdoli ~ Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP
David Bainbridge ~ Assistant Chief, Enforcement Division, Fair Political Practices Commission
Steven I. Berlin ~ Executive Director, Board of Ethics, City of Chicago
Wesley D. Bizzell ~ Senior Assistant General Counsel, External Affairs, Managing Director of Political Law and Ethics Programs, Altria Client Services LLC
Caleb P. Burns ~ Wiley Rein LLP
Debbie Chacona ~ Director, Reports Analysis Division, Federal Election Commission
Stacey Fulhorst ~ Executive Director, Ethics Commission, City of San Diego Ethics Commission
Richard L. Hasen ~ Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine
Ki P. Hong ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Robert K. Kelner ~ Covington & Burling LLP
Terri J. Lee ~ Vice President, State Government Affairs & Policy, Merck & Co Inc.
Deborah S. Mayer ~ Chief Counsel & Staff Director, Select Committee on Ethics, U.S.Senate
Joanne Lendway McMahon ~ Leader - Governmental Compliance, GE Corporate - Legal, General Electric Company
LeeAnn Pelham ~ Executive Director, San Francisco Ethics Commission
Michael J. Sullivan ~ Director, Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance
Hon. Ellen L. Weintraub ~ Vice Chair, Federal Election Commission
Galena West ~ Chief, Enforcement Division, Fair Political Practices Commission
Lydia Wylie ~ Senior Analyst, Political Compliance Program, Chevron Corporation
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period. Effective January 1, 2019, the limit of distance education per reporting period will increase from 9 to 18 credits.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  All PLI products can fulfill Washington’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2019 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2019 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.