We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-6 of 6

Pay-to-play survey now available

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 13 2011

Almost two-dozen states and scores of municipalities have some sort of pay-to-play restrictions on contributions related to current or prospective government contractors

Pay-to-play spotlight: City of Los Angeles toughens pay-to-play laws

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 13 2011

The City of Los Angeles significantly expanded its pay-to-play laws when city voters approved, on March 8, 2011, an amendment to the Los Angeles City Charter

Court and legislature reshape Connecticut's pay-to-play and lobbying laws

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 16 2010

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on July 13, 2010, upheld some aspects of Connecticut's pay-to-play law and struck down other aspects as unconstitutional

Colorado's Supreme Court strikes down the state's broad and onerous pay-to-play law

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 15 2010

On February 22, 2010, the Colorado Supreme Court struck down Amendment 54, which was the pay-to-play ballot measure passed by the citizens of Colorado in November of 2008 and which had been enjoined since June 23, 2009

Texas begins regulating procurement lobbying; registration may be required

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 11 2009

Effective September 1, 2009, Texas began regulating certain aspects of procurement lobbying

Pay-to-play spotlight: New Jersey Supreme Court rules against pay-to-play violator

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 13 2009

On January 15, 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision against Earle Asphalt Company in an important pay-to-play decision