Primary Source from The Center for Public Integrity

Vitter's hunt for super PAC cash limited — but watch out, alligators

2013-05-24T15:48:38-04:00

During his time at an upcoming “Louisiana Bayou Weekend” super PAC fundraiser, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., will be able to ask attendees how they like the Cajun cooking. And he’s free to inquire whether they bagged a gator during the weekend’s planned alligator hunt.

But he won’t be able to ask them to contribute more than $5,000 to its sponsor, the Fund for Louisiana’s Future, a super PAC created to support Vitter.

That’s because federal law prohibits federal candidates from officeholders from soliciting contributions in excess of $5,000 per year for super PACs, even though the groups may accept contributions of unlimited size.

It also doesn't matter "whether the funds are used for state or federal election work,” attorney Paul S. Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center told the Center for Public Integrity.

“The donor can always give as much as they choose to,” added Joe Birkenstock, an attorney at Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, D.C. “It’s a limit on what can be asked.”

Vitter, who is mulling a run for governor, will appear at the September fundraiser as a “special guest,” according to an invitation obtained by Politico.

The Fund for Louisiana’s Future is also registered with the state of Louisiana, which caps contributions to all political action committees at $100,000 per election cycle.

Since the advent of super PACs during the 2010 election cycle, federal politicians on both sides of the aisle have solicited funds for the unlimited-spending groups, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Neither Fund for Louisiana’s Future treasurer, Charlies Spies, nor a spokesman for Vitter immediately responded to requests for comment.

Conservative nonprofit seeks to oust IRS official

2013-05-24T13:53:42-04:00

The American Future Fund, a Republican-aligned “social welfare” nonprofit, is circulating a petition to “fire Lois Lerner,” the Internal Revenue Service official at the center of the ongoing political storm about the agency’s targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

“Did you see IRS official Lois Lerner’s stunning and insulting actions before a Congressional committee yesterday where she made a personal statement of innocence, then plead the Fifth and left?” American Future Fund founder Nick Ryan wrote in an email to supporters Friday obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

“Does it leave you seeing red that Ms. Lerner refused to fully and honestly answer questions before the Committee about who knew what and when?” Ryan continued. “Then let’s do something about it.”

The American Future Fund itself has frequently been singled out by campaign finance reform groups, who have accused the nonprofit of masquerading under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code when it ought to be registered as a political committee — and subject to donor disclosure rules.

During the 2012 election season, the American Future Fund spent more than $29 million on political advertisements, as the Center for Public Integrity previously reported.

As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, it is allowed to make election-related expenditures, so long as politics are not its “primary” purpose.

Little is known about the donors to the American Future Fund. Between 2009 and 2011, 51 percent of the money the group raised came from another nonprofit — the Arizona-based Center to Protect Patient Rights, which has no website and lists its address in government filings as a post office box in Phoenix.

The American Future Fund was awarded tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) in October 2008, IRS records show.

Lerner, the director of the IRS exempt division, was put on administrative leave from the IRS on Thursday.

Senators investigating Apple own company stock

Apple Inc. — 2013-05-23T10:31:05-04:00

Two senators serving on a subcommittee that Tuesday grilled Apple Inc. executives over the company's offshore tax practices are themselves owners of Apple stock, either directly or through a spouse, according to interviews and a review of federal disclosure documents by the Center for Public Integrity.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., owns the most Apple stock among the 14 members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, with her holdings worth at least $250,001 and up to $500,000, according to personal financial disclosure documents for calendar year 2012. She also earned up to $5,000 in Apple stock dividends last year, records show.

Heitkamp was one of six committee members to not attend Tuesday's hours-long hearing, during which Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook defended his company against accusations of tax dodging. Attendee or not, the senator's stock holdings do not pose a conflict with her committee service, a spokeswoman said.

“Senator Heitkamp was selected to serve on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee because of her unique position being from a border state and her past experience as a state attorney general working along aside law enforcement," spokeswoman Whitney Phillips said. "Her position on this committee is in no way impacted by her personal financial holdings.”

Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and an ex officio member on its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations who attended the hearing and asked questions, reported that his wife, Martha Ann, owned up to $100,000 worth of Apple stock during 2012. The stock also generated up to $2,500 in dividends last year, federal records show.

Officeholders generally disclose their assets and earnings in broad ranges.

Carper's committee office confirmed the senator's wife currently owns Apple equities, but spokeswoman Jennie Westbrook declined to answer specific questions about the stock holding.

(Update, 10:19 a.m., May 23: Westbrook followed up with a statement regarding Carper's Apple holdings, which reads: “In his role as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Chairman Carper continues to make it a top priority to conduct thorough and proper oversight. Neither Chairman Carper’s financial holdings nor his family’s influence his policy and oversight work on the committee or in the Senate. This is underscored by the fact that he actively participated in Sen. [Carl] Levin’s hearing on this important matter.”)

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., another ex officio subcommittee member, also reported trading in Apple stock options during 2012, earning up to $50,000 from the transactions, according to his newly released personal financial disclosure document.

The same document also states that Coburn's Apple holdings at the end of 2012 were worth $1,000 or less — an indication he may no longer have Apple holdings. Representatives for Coburn, who also did not attend Tuesday's hearing, could not be reached for comment.

In addition to Carper, Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich; John McCain, R-Ariz.; Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; Ron Johnson, R-Wis.; Rob Portman, R-Ohio; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. attended Tuesday's hearing. These senators reported no Apple stock holdings in 2012 outside of what might exist in broad-based mutual funds that many of them reported.

Another committee member in attendance, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was granted a 90-day filing extension for his 2012 disclosure paperwork after asking for more time. It is therefore unknown whether Paul, who defended Apple during the hearing, owned Apple stock during 2012. During 2011, he did not, federal records show.

In 2011, Apple stock, which today closed at $441.35 per share, ranked among the most popular holdings by all members of Congress — just below the stock shares of other massive companies such as General Electric, ExxonMobil, Pfizer and Bank of America, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

IRS rarely denies 'social welfare' applications

2013-05-20T17:37:11-04:00

During its past four fiscal years, the Internal Revenue Service has formally denied the applications of just 60 organizations seeking recognition under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code as “social welfare” groups.

In the same period, the agency processed 8,214 applications and approved 6,837 of them — about 83 percent, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of IRS data.

Sometimes applications were neither approved nor denied, meaning groups could still be awaiting recognition of tax-exempt status or still be providing the IRS with additional information. They may also have withdrawn their applications.

The IRS's approval processes have come under fire following an inspector general report that found IRS employees used “inappropriate criteria” to discern which organizations’ applications warranted additional scrutiny.

The IRS’s 2012 fiscal year, which covered the period between Oct. 1, 2011, and Sept. 30, 2012, saw a surge of new applications under Section 501(c)(4). During that period, 2,774 groups sought recognition as “social welfare” nonprofits, as the Center for Public Integrity has previously reported.

That represented an increase of more than 56 percent from fiscal year 2011 — and an increase of nearly 86 percent from fiscal year 2008.

The IRS processed 23,722 applications for 501(c)(4) nonprofit status between fiscal years 2001 and 2012, records indicate.

The agency approved roughly 77 percent of those, while rejecting less than three-tenths of one percent: 66 denials versus 18,214 approvals, albeit in fiscal year 2008 the IRS did not report how many groups it denied “to avoid disclosure of specific taxpayer data.”

Before the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday, Steven Miller, who served as the agency’s commissioner until he resigned last week, testified that IRS did not have “sufficient personnel” to process all of the applications its tax-exempt unit has received.

Both the Senate Finance Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are planning hearings on the topic this week.

Funds from Adelson-backed super PAC boost Georgia nonprofit

Georgia,United States — 2013-05-20T01:24:29-04:00

One of the largest super PACs active in Virginia’s high-profile U.S. Senate race last year has ceased operations and transferred its leftover funds to a Georgia-based nonprofit — though what the group plans to do with the money is unclear.

Rise and Shine America, Inc., the Georgia nonprofit, is organized as a “social welfare” organization under section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code. It received nearly $42,000 on April 30 from Independence Virginia PAC, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Ahead of the 2012 election, Independence Virginia PAC spent approximately $5 million attempting to boost Republican George Allen in his unsuccessful U.S. Senate bid against Democrat Tim Kaine.

Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson accounted for $4 million of the group’s $5.2 million in receipts. Adelson was the top donor to super PACs during the 2012 election cycle, when he, along with his relatives, contributed more than $93 million to GOP-aligned super PACs.

Independence Virginia PAC’s donation to Rise and Shine America was first reported by Roll Call’s Kent Cooper, who posited that the funds might be used in connection with the state's upcoming U.S. Senate election.

However, Doug Chalmers, the attorney for Rise and Shine America, Inc., told the Center for Public Integrity that the nonprofit “does not intend to be involved in the Georgia U.S. Senate race.”

“We're not sure how that story got started, but it's pure speculation and incorrect,” he wrote in an email to the Center for Public Integrity.

Chalmers declined to specify how the money would be put to use.

Incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss announced that he will not seek re-election, sparking a flurry of interest from Georgia Republicans who are eyeing the seat including three sitting U.S. House members, Reps. Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston.

In filings with the Internal Revenue Service, Rise and Shine America describes its mission as “protecting conservative values” such as “limited government” and “fiscal responsibility.”

Harry “Chip” Lake III, a former aide to Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., serves as Rise and Shine America’s chief executive officer, chief financial officer and secretary, according to business records filed with the state of Georgia.

The super PAC’s five-figure donation nearly equals the nonprofit’s entire budget during its first year of existence.

Rise and Shine America, which was formed in July 2011, raised $50,000 during its first year, according to a new tax filing obtained by the Center for Public Integrity.

As of June 30, 2012, at the end of its first fiscal year, the nonprofit listed assets of $340 with liabilities of $2,000 — leaving it $1,660 in the red.

There is at least one definitive link between Rise and Shine America and Independence Virginia PAC: Republican political consultant Paul Bennecke.

Bennecke was the treasurer of the Virginia-based super PAC. He is also listed as a director of Rise and Shine America on its IRS annual report.

Bennecke, a former executive director of Georgia’s Republican Party and former political director of the Republican Governors Association, could not be reached for comment.

Do nonprofits' names imply political activity?

2013-05-20T15:52:05-04:00

Trevor Potter — a Republican lawyer and president of the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates for stronger campaign finance regulations — says that the Internal Revenue Service is right to be on the lookout for organizations with a “significant amount of political activity.”

“What they are trying to do is identify groups that intend to be politically active, which is the appropriate thing for them to do,” he told the Center for Public Integrity, adding an important caveat.

“It seems to me, personally, that using the name is a pretty weak indicia,” he continued.

There are about 90,000 organizations recognized by the IRS as "social welfare" nonprofits under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code.

Most don't have politically charged names, but scores do.

For instance, there are 20 social welfare nonprofits with the word "Democrat" in their name, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of IRS data. Meanwhile, 18 social welfare nonprofits include the word "Republican" in theirs.

Twenty-one organizations use the word "conservative," while 31 use the word "progressive."

Sixty-nine social welfare nonprofits include the word "campaign" in their names. Just three use the word "politics."

Words such as "America" and "veterans" are far more commonly used by 501(c)(4) organizations, as our word cloud illustrates.

According to a recently released inspector general report, the buzzwords “tea party,” “patriot” and “9/12” were used by IRS employees to flag potentially political cases.

Only two social welfare nonprofits with any of those buzzwords in their names reported any political spending to the Federal Election Commission, as the Center for Public Integrity today reported. One was Republican-aligned and one was Democratic-aligned.

Methodological note: This graphic was constructed based on a Center for Public Integrity analysis of organizations listed in the IRS business master file that were recognized in 2012, omitting some common, generic words such as "association," "club" and "inc."

'Tea party' nonprofits rarely endorsed political candidates

2013-05-20T01:56:51-04:00

Tea party groups and other conservative nonprofits at the heart of a scandal rocking the Internal Revenue Service have, of late, largely avoided electoral politics, according to a Center for Public Integrity review of Federal Election Commission filings.

About five dozen groups with the buzzwords “tea party,” “patriot” and “9/12” in their names have been officially recognized by the IRS as "social welfare" nonprofits under Section 501(c)(4) of U.S. tax code. There are about 90,000 such organizations.

But only two of the buzzword groups reported overtly advocating for or against political candidates during 2012, or even mentioning political candidates in broadcast advertisements immediately before primary or general elections.

And one of those is, in fact, unabashedly liberal.

Both groups, which use a version of "patriot" in their names, offer contrasting perspectives into the nebulous world of politically active nonprofits.

One of these is Patriotic Veterans, Inc, a Chicago-based organization launched in 2008. Conservative political consultant Paul Caprio serves as its president.

Patriotic Veterans told the FEC that it spent $86,700 on radio ads that mentioned Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Republican House candidate Adam Kinzinger of Illinois ahead of during the 2012 election.

IRS records show automated phone calls have also been a regular expense of the group.

In 2004, Caprio worked with John O’Neill, co-author of the controversial book Unfit for Command, to design a voter-contact program aimed at veterans highlighting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s “true record of service in Vietnam,” according to Caprio’s online biography.

An archived version of the group’s now-defunct website says its mission is “to inform voters of the positions taken by candidates and office holders on issues of interest to veterans.”

Only one other 501(c)(4) “patriot”-named nonprofit reported spending to the FEC during the 2012 election cycle: a liberal-aligned group called Patriot Majority USA.

Ahead of the 2012 election, Patriot Majority USA reported spending about $7.5 million to the FEC on political advertisements, most of them highly critical of Republicans.

Based in Washington, D.C., Patriot Majority USA was established in March 2011, after being spun-off from another operation.

The nonprofit is headed by strategist Craig Varoga, who has advised numerous Democratic candidates, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear. In 2010, political committees that were part of the Patriot Majority network spent millions on behalf of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who won a contentious re-election battle that year.

A 2011 filing with the IRS describes the nonprofit’s primary purpose as seeking to “encourage a discussion of economic issues in the United States in order to make America stronger and promote our country’s future economic prosperity.”

When it applied for tax-exempt status, the group told the IRS that its political spending would not exceed 40 percent of its annual budget, according to documents obtained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Patriot Majority USA has never publicly reported any of its funders.

When the FEC asked about the lack of information about donors, Patriot Majority USA’s counsel Ezra Reese said that the group, as a matter of policy, “does not accept contributions earmarked for a specific political purpose.”

Federal law only requires nonprofit groups to disclose the names of donors who earmark contributions for political advertisements — something donors rarely do.

Meanwhile, political committees — including super PACs, which, like nonprofits, are allowed to accept donations of unlimited size — are required to reveal all donors who give more than $200.

Neither Varoga nor Caprio responded to requests for comment.

Faced with an onslaught of new applications by organizations seeking tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code, IRS employees in 2010 developed a shorthand for cases they thought might merit additional scrutiny.

If words such as appeared in groups’ names, applications were flagged as potential political cases, according to a report released Tuesday by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The rules for who can fund social welfare nonprofits’ political advocacy have been loosened in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

While 501(c)(4) nonprofits cannot primarily be in the business of influencing elections, they are legally allowed to call for the election or defeat of candidates. When they do, they must disclose their expenditures to the FEC — just as individuals, labor unions, business associations and corporations do.

They must also report expenditures related to ads that mention politicians shortly before an election, even if they fall short of explicitly advocating for their support or defeat.

Social welfare nonprofits — such as Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, which was co-founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove — spent hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of the 2012 election.

The inspector general’s report concluded that despite the use of “inappropriate criteria,” the IRS was “not politically biased” in its assessment of nonprofits’ applications.

In recent days, the agency’s actions have received bipartisan condemnation, and IRS Acting Commissioner Steven Miller resigned Wednesday.

Ben Wieder contributed to this report.

ADA forces judge to slash jury award for disabled workers

2013-05-21T13:30:44-04:00

An Iowa federal judge who frequently attends business-friendly judicial education conferences slashed a landmark $240 million verdict to $1.6 million for 32 mentally disabled workers who suffered abuse and discrimination at the hands of their employer.

It might appear that a pro-business judge made a predictably pro-business ruling. Turns out the judge had no choice. The 22-year-old Americans with Disabilities Act — designed to protect the rights of disabled workers — is to blame for the paltry award.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Wolle of the Southern District of Iowa ordered Henry’s Turkey Service to pay $50,000 in damages to each of the workers involved in a discrimination lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In total, the judge ruled, the company must pay the workers $1.6 million.

Wolle’s decision came two weeks after a federal jury awarded each of the workers a total of $7.5 million in damages — $240 million in all. Jurors found that Henry’s, a now-defunct Texas company, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by subjecting the disabled workers to years of unfair treatment and harassment.

The EEOC’s complaint, filed in 2011, accused Henry’s of taking advantage of the workers’ mental disabilities, paying them substandard wages — $60 to $65 per month despite working at least 35 hours per week — failing to attend to the workers’ illnesses and injuries, and subjecting them verbal and physical abuse.

(Updated May 21, 2013, 1:28 p.m.: This story has been updated to add details of the accusations by EEOC against the employer.)

According to the EEOC, the disabled workers were hit, kicked and even handcuffed by their supervisors. One former Henry’s supervisor admitted in federal court that he had slapped and kicked mentally disabled employees at the turkey processing plant. In addition to being physically abused, the EEOC wrote in its complaint, workers were also called derogatory names, denied bathroom breaks and forced to live in a squalid bunkhouse.

The company, jurors unanimously agreed, acted with “malice or with reckless indifference” to the workers’ federal civil rights. The jury awarded each of the 32 men $5.5 million to compensate them for their pain and suffering, and another $2 million in punitive damages.

In a May 1 press release, the EEOC trumpeted the “historic verdict,” claiming that the $240 million in total damages amounted to “the largest verdict in the federal agency’s history.”

Not so fast.

As it turns out, the Americans with Disabilities Act limits the amount of damages that can be awarded to plaintiffs. That’s why Judge Wolle so drastically reduced the award.

Under the act, compensatory and punitive damages are capped at $50,000 for companies like Henry’s that employ between 14 and 101 employees.

The limit is $300,000 for companies that employ more than 500 employees.

EEOC attorney Robert Canino acknowledged the caps in a brief he filed on May 10.

The EEOC “understands that the amount of damages of $7,500,000 assessed and awarded by the jury to each of the 32 class members, while certainly an appropriate and meaningful measure of the actual harms suffered by these victims of discrimination, including but not limited to, the mental anguish, pain and suffering, and ‘loss of enjoyment of life,’ must be drastically reduced in order to come within the stringent statutory limits for recovery under” the law, he wrote.

Robert Dinerstein, an American University law professor who specializes in disability law, says the caps on damages were implemented in an effort to balance plaintiffs’ needs to be compensated for their pain and suffering without unnecessarily putting companies out of business.

Still, he says, “I think the [caps] are problematic.”

For one thing, Dinerstein says, plaintiffs are already burdened with proving to a jury that the discrimination they’re alleging is real and intentional. “It’s not as if any Tom, Dick and Harry can go to a sympathetic jury and win,” he says.

Moreover, Dinerstein says $300,000 is “chump change” for a large company employing more than 500 workers.

When companies discriminate against their disabled employees, “They should pay the piper.”

Even though the damages were significantly cut, Dinerstein says, “You still have a symbolic victory.”

That symbolic victory is also supplemented by a previous judgment ordering Henry’s to pay the workers a total of about $1.3 million in back pay.

Slideshow: GOP fundraising blitz after IRS scandal

2013-05-20T02:07:39-04:00

Solicitations from GOP politicians and party committees are attempting to capitalize on conservatives' outrage over IRS officials singling out tea party and other right-leaning nonprofit groups for enhanced scrutiny. Meanwhile, the Democrats are mentioning everything but the IRS in their fundraising appeals. | READ THE STORY: IRS scandal sparks fundraising blitz

Canada buoyed by former U.S. ambassador

2013-05-17T10:27:07-04:00

Since U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins moved back home from Ottawa in 2009, he’s reclaimed his role as liaison between the U.S. and its northern neighbor.

But this time, Wilkins — the Bush Administration’s top diplomat in Canada from 2005 to 2009 — is working for the Great White North, lobbying the U.S. federal government on behalf of Canadian business and government entities.

And last week, Wilkins parlayed his former ambassadorship into a job lobbying Congress on behalf of the Toronto-based Investment Industry Association of Canada, according to reports filed with the U.S. Senate.

Does Wilkins’ latest circuit through the international revolving door create conflict of interest or the appearance of one? No, Wilkins told the Center for Public Integrity, saying he “respectfully disagreed” with such a notion.

“As U.S. ambassador, I advocated for the U.S.-Canada relationship,” Wilkins said. “I do the same thing today, but in the private sector.”

The South Carolina native has lobbied on behalf of handful of Canadian interests since 2009, when he joined the Washington-based firm Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP as partner and chair of the public policy and international law practice group.

Last year, the provincial government of Saskatchewan spent $400,000 to hire Wilkins and his associates to advocate for province’s energy exports and cross-border food safety. That same year, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers spent $240,000 for Nelson Mullins to lobby Capitol Hill regarding Canada’s oil sands industry, records indicate.

Additionally, Wilkins has sat on the board of the Toronto Island-based Porter Airlines since April 2009, according to a Financial Post report.

Wilkins is not the only former U.S. diplomat to represent a foreign entity on Capitol Hill.

Jim Blanchard, an ambassador to Canada during the Clinton administration, advocated for the Forest Products Association of Canada in in 2009.

The Republic of India hired Robert Blackwill — a Bush Administration ambassador to India — to lobby Congress and federal agencies on the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreements, records show.

Wilkins says he has not breached any ethical standards by lobbying for Canadian industry because he has not engaged in any lobbying issue that he was “actively involved” with as ambassador.

The bulk of his pro-Canada advocacy has been devoted to facilitating meetings and lining up press opportunities when Canadian officials visit Washington, Wilkins said.

“There is no conflict of interest, because I’m not advocating on any position that I was actively involved in as a U.S. ambassador.”

The Province of Alberta had, however, hired Wilkins to lobby Congress on "issues impacting Alberta's forestry industry" — an area with which he became familiar while for a time overseeing the decades-long U.S.-Canada lumber trade dispute as ambassador.

Since 2010, Alberta has spent $480,000 for Nelson Mullins lobbying services, including those of Wilkins. Officials from the Alberta and Saskatchewan governments did not reply to requests for comment.

Wilkins said that his most recent work for a Canadian client, the Investment Industry Association of Canada, was consigned to a “one afternoon deal,” meet and greet with the association’s President and CEO Ian Russell and members of the House Financial Services Committee.

“When it came to Congress, we needed to have Nelson Mullins provide us with a little bit of help to meet the right congressional leaders,” Russell said.

During typical visits to Washington, D.C., IIAC officials meet with individual regulators in the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commissions, but this trip was focused on educating members of Congress on the association’s agenda of regulatory reform and Canada’s securities markets, he said.

Wilkins, who works out of a Greenville, S.C., office, said was not present for those meetings and said that the lobbyist registration form filed on behalf of IIAC was submitted in “an abundance of precaution” to ensure transparency in Nelson Mullins’ dealings — however limited — with Canadian trade group.

“We were not advocating for any specific law or bill,” Wilkins said of the visit. “I don’t anticipate any ongoing lobbying effort.”