October 17, 2011, 02:54 pm
By Michael Lipsky, Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos
Our country’s system of safeguards is good for American business as
well as for the public’s health and the environment. You would never
know this, however, from reading the news out of Washington, which is
dominated by reports on the antipathy to regulation of the business
lobby and its Republican allies in Congress.
I was reminded of the more complex views of business toward regulation
the other day when I dug up news reports on the salmonella outbreak in
peanut products a little less than two years ago. Nine people died
and hundreds were sickened in the outbreak that was traced to
contamination at a facility in Georgia of the Peanut Corporation of
America. In his testimony before Congress, David Mackay, then president of the Kellogg Company, reported that the company recalled seven million
cases of Keebler cookies and other peanut-based products, and revamped
its internal controls.
He also asked the Federal government to play a greater role in food
safety inspection. He urged Congress to establish a single agency
with responsibility for food safety, to undertake annual inspections
of food processing plants that were particularly vulnerable to disease
outbreaks, and to enact into law federal authority to recall food
products directly (instead of relying on voluntary compliance). In
short, he asked the federal government for more regulation.
With the support of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, other
interests Congress incorporated these and other reforms in the Food
Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) of 2010. Among the many
provisions of the law are the beginnings of safeguards to protect
against illnesses resulting from imported food.
October 11, 2011, 06:24 pm
By Thomas J. Spulak,King & Spalding partner and chair of the firm’s Government Advocacy and Public Policy Practice Group
The Lobbying Disclosure Act requires registrants to disclose on a quarterly basis specific information describing the nature of a lobbyist’s activities. Much of what is required is straightforward, such as the name of a client, the amount of fees earned, and the entities that are the subject of the lobbying. One area where there is discretion, however, is in describing the issues on which a registrant has been engaged.
To comply with the letter and spirit of the law, a lobbyist must adequately describe the nature of the activity, but beyond meeting the legal requirements, a lobbyist should carefully choose the words that are used to describe the activity. According to reports about the activities of lobbyists assisting a controversial client currently being scrutinized by Congress, it appears that isn’t always the case, and could have adverse consequences for the client.
Section 5(b)(2)(A) of the LDA requires the disclosure of specific issues upon which a registrant is engaged to lobby. Official LDA guidance requires a lobbyist to disclose the bill number of any legislation on which they are working and, more specifically, any particular sections of that legislation that is the focus of their activity. Similarly, if a lobbyist is attempting to influence an executive branch rulemaking, they should adequately describe the pending rule and any specific sections. The bottom line is that a lobbyist must disclose enough to inform the public adequately of their client’s specific issues.
October 03, 2011, 06:28 pm
By Curt Levey, constitutional law attorney and executive director of Committee for Justice.
The Supreme Court term that began this week will be remembered not for the important cases already on the High Court’s docket, but for the four blockbuster cases knocking on the Court’s door.
The four cases will likely make this the most important term in decades, while focusing Americans on several of the nation’s most emotional and divisive issues – illegal immigration, health care reform, gay marriage, affirmative action, and overreaching federal power – at the perfect time to influence the 2012 election.
The rulings in those cases and the ages of several Justices will make the Court’s legitimacy and future direction prominent campaign issues as well.
When the Obama Administration signaled last week that it wouldn’t delay a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, the last piece fell into place for an historic term. Within days, petitions for Supreme Court review were filed in Florida v. Health & Human Services, in which 26 states are challenging the new health care law. The timing guarantees ObamaCare a dominant role in the election debate.
Sen. Schumer delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor Monday following the confirmation of J. Paul Oetken to serve as a federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Oetken is the first openly gay man to be confirmed to serve on the federal bench.
It is my distinct honor to rise in support of Paul Oetken’s confirmation to the bench of the Southern District of New York. We have a very deep pool of legal talent in New York, but Paul’s nomination is one that everyone is talking about.
Paul is brilliant, well-rounded, and unwavering in his dedication to public service and his commitment to the rule of law. His confirmation will only improve the workings of one of the best and busiest courts in the country.
Washington will almost certainly have to deal with a host of proposed mergers in the next few years as markets respond to accelerating forces of technological change and global competition. At the top of the list right now is the ATT/T-Mobile deal, which generated a lot of heat at a House Judiciary Committee meeting just last week.
Herewith, a few observations gleaned from watching the merger scene over the last two decades...
Sen. McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:
Over the past two years, our nation has been engaged in a great debate about the kind of country we want America to be — a place of maximum liberty and limited government, or a place where no problem is too big or too small for the government to get involved.
This debate arose because of a president who made no apologies about wanting to move America to the left; and it continues today, despite widespread opposition to the president’s policies, because of the president’s clear determination to forge ahead.