ANNALS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Daniel Defense, the Georgia-based gun manufacturer whose rifle was used in the killing of 21 schoolchildren and teachers last month in Uvalde, Texas, has been hit with a new complaint alleging the company violated federal campaign finance laws against federal contractors making political contributions. — The complaint from the watchdog group Campaign Legal Center centers on a $100,000 donation from the gunmaker to a super PAC, the Gun Owners Action Fund, last year. The committee’s independent expenditures supported former Sens. David Perdue (R-Ga.) and Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) in their runoff elections, campaign finance filings show. — The contribution from Daniel Defense, which was made on Jan. 6, 2021, represented 90 percent of the super PAC’s haul during this election cycle, according to the complaint, and came at a time when the gunmaker had several active federal contracts with the Pentagon, State Department and Department of Justice. — “Allowing federal contractors like Daniel Defense to make political contributions would risk creating a ‘pay to play’ culture of political corruption, in which companies benefiting from taxpayer-funded federal contracts receive favored treatment in exchange for their political contributions,” the complaint argues, calling the federal contractor contribution prohibition “a bulwark against corruption and the appearance of corruption.” — CLC’s complaint notes that it has flagged one other contribution to the super PAC, from gunmaker Sig Sauer, which was refunded after the watchdog group filed an FEC complaint pointing out that company’s status as a federal contractor. The Washington Post’s Isaac Stanley-Becker reports that last month, Daniel Defense asked that its contribution to the super PAC be refunded. LAWMAKERS PROBE FOSSIL FUELS’ PR MACHINE: Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee are seeking internal documents from five public relations firms and the American Petroleum Institute detailing the work they did for fossil fuel companies, Morning Energy reports. — The committee wants API, FTI Consulting, Story Partners, DDC Advocacy, Blue Advertising and Singer Associates to submit documents and information related to the firms’ work on marketing or influence campaigns by June 27. The inquiry references an incident last year when former ExxonMobil lobbyist Keith McCoy was caught on video saying the company backed a carbon tax only for publicity and touting the use of “shadow groups” to undermine climate change pushes. — In letters to the firms, committee Chair Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif,), chair of its oversight panel, wrote that the committee “seeks greater understanding of this cooperation among industry, trade associations and PR firms to influence public opinion and policymaking in ways that prevent the United States from addressing the climate crisis.” — The inquiry is a victory for activists including Clean Creatives , which has pushed PR and ad agencies to drop fossil fuel clients. “There’s no way for agencies to keep brushing off their fossil fuel work as ‘business as usual’ now that it’s the subject of Congressional investigation,” Duncan Meisel, the group’s director, argued in a statement. WILL THE JAN. 6 HEARINGS RESULT IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP?: “Former President Donald Trump is unlikely to face fraud charges related to his campaign's alleged efforts to mislead supporters into donating money to a non-existent ‘Official Election Defense Fund,’” legal experts tell Insider’s Brent Griffiths and Dave Levinthal. — “Trump's political fundraising operation is under renewed scrutiny after the US House's January 6 select committee confirmed that no such fund ever existed. Trump's campaign repeatedly hit up supporters with ominous messages that repeated the then-president[‘s] debunked claims about widespread election fraud. The messages raked in record donations for the beleaguered president to the tune of more than $170 million before he even left office.” — “It's clear that he intentionally misled his donors, asked them to donate to a fund that didn't exist and used the money raised for something other than what he said. Now it's for someone else to decide whether that's criminal or not,” committee member Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) told reporters following Monday’s hearing. — “But experts told Insider that while Trump or his associates may have misled donors, there are still crucial details that are still unknown about the fundraising strategy. ‘You need to prove to the jury that somebody authorized solicitations that said the money was going to be spent on election contests knowing that was false,’ said Adav Noti , vice president and legal director at the Campaign Legal Center who previously served as the Federal Election Commission's associate general counsel for policy. ‘You need to find the individuals, it wouldn't be enough for criminal purposes to say, “here's what happened.” HOT ANTITRUST SUMMER: “The Justice Department officials who will decide whether President Joe Biden’s anti-monopoly guru can handle the government’s massive case against Google previously ran nonprofits that took loads of cash from the tech giant, disclosures show,” according to the Daily Beast’s William Bredderman. — “In May, the feds tentatively yanked Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter — whom the administration brought on last year to lead its antitrust division — from its investigations and legal efforts against Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc, including the mega-suit the Department of Justice brought in 2020 alleging the company unfairly undercuts rivals.” — “The move came after Google urged the federal government to force Kanter to recuse himself, noting his previous private-sector work against the company on behalf of such clients as Microsoft and Yelp, and his history of critical commentary about the California-based powerhouse’s business practices.” — “But the officials who will make a final determination about whether Kanter will resume his responsibilities in the Google cases have their own histories in the private sector — including with organizations that benefited from the company’s lavish giving.”
| 
