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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
