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 | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
