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 | 8 min read | 06.30.25
AI Companies Prevail in Path-Breaking Decisions on Fair Use
Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.30.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
FDA Targets Gene Editing Clinical Trials in China and other “Hostile Countries”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
