1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance Reverses Course!

Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance Reverses Course!

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.16.08

The Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House overhauled Section 7 of The Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance regarding required contribution disclosures (due July 30). Several examples in the most recent Guidance represent a complete reversal from those posted in the May 29, 2008 iteration.

For example, the prior Guidance stated that the mere recognition of a covered official as an "honorary co-host" was sufficient to trigger reporting requirements. Example 7 now provides the opposite.

The prior Guidance also suggested that one must disclose mere payment for a ticket to a luncheon at which a covered official is honored. Example 9 now states that buying a ticket or table to another entity's dinner event is not in itself a reportable circumstance.

In addition, the prior Guidance stated that lobbying registrants must disclose their financial sponsorship of an event when a covered official is merely a speaker or disclosed invitee. Examples 6 and 8 of the Guidance now state that unless the covered official receives a special award, honor, or recognition in connection with such an event, the cost of the event need not be disclosed.

Other minor amendments include a clarification that events must be disclosed where a covered official is bestowed an award, even if the primary purpose of the event is other than to honor the official (e.g., to raise money for the sponsoring organization).

For a copy of the new Guidance, click here:
http://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/amended_lda_guide.html

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.01.26

Supreme Court Rejects “Mere Knowledge” Standard for Contributory Copyright Infringement in Cox v. Sony, Reverses $1 Billion Judgment Against Cox

On March 25, 2026, in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a $1 billion verdict against Cox. The judgment was the result of a jury trial in which Sony claimed that Cox was liable for contributory copyright infringement because it knew that its customers were using its service to infringe yet did not respond with sufficient diligence to prevent that infringement....