Now that the calendar has flipped to 2026, “The Lobby Bar” podcast hosts Charlie Ricciardelli and Tyler Rosen are back for part two of their compliance review close-up, focusing this time on reviews for corporate political action committees (PACs). They analyze why these reviews are important and the top 10 issues — including fraud, accounting errors, bank reconciliations, missed filings and lack of good governance practices — that they encounter when conducting PAC compliance reviews.
Episode Summary
As a follow-up to their last “Lobby Bar” episode of 2025, which focused on lobbying compliance audits, hosts Charlie Ricciardelli and Tyler Rosen return in 2026 with a deep dive into political action committee (PAC) compliance audits. Tune in as the hosts present their top 10 findings that they’ve encountered in such audits, as well as the five “W’s” of what make these audits so important for PACs.
Voiceover (00:00):
From Skadden, you’re listening to The Lobby Bar, a political law podcast where we strive to make political law accessible and host Charlie Ricciardelli and Tyler Rosen deliver practical insights on the compliance challenges and regulatory developments that matter to legal, compliance and government affairs professionals across all industries.
Tyler Rosen (00:22):
Hello, I am Tyler Rosen.
Charlie Ricciardelli (00:24):
And I’m Charlie Richardelli.
Tyler Rosen (00:27):
And we are partners in Skadden’s political law compliance investigations practice, and you are listening to “The Lobby Bar.” Now, if you are a regular Lobby Bar listener, and we hope that you are, then you’ve experienced the earlier version of this when we, in December, talked about the political law compliance review, federal lobbying compliance. And today we’re going to be talking about the corollary for PAC audits or PAC compliance reviews. And, full confession here, in your life and the world outside, we’re in a new year, it’s 2026. But for us, we just recorded that last episode 10 minutes ago.
(01:03):
So, we’re coming fresh and if you haven’t listened to it, if you’re new to The Lobby Bar, welcome. It’s worth going back and listening to that one because we talk a little bit more than we’re going to today about why you should be doing some sort of compliance review periodically. But the short version of that is-
Charlie Ricciardelli (01:19):
Well, I would make a plug for actually going back and watching it on video if for no other reason that you will detect a wardrobe change for Tyler, who has changed shirts.
Tyler Rosen (01:28):
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That is not true. I took off my sweater.
Charlie Ricciardelli (01:31):
Oh, you took off your sweater. Okay, all right, all right that’s why I was misled.
Tyler Rosen (01:35):
Yeah, no, it was hot. I took off my sweater.
Charlie Ricciardelli (01:37):
Fair enough. Fair enough. Yeah.
Tyler Rosen (01:39):
Anyway, I recommend going back and listening to all the old podcasts to really explore the back catalog of The Lobby Bar, because they are out there and we put some time into them and I think they’re pretty interesting. So, the shorter version of that intro from last time was who, what, where, when and why do we do these compliance reviews or check-ups, or audits as sometimes we call them. The who being: it makes sense to have outside counsel do it. We are happy to do it, other outside counsel do it, but it’s a good practice to have an outside set of eyes on what you’re doing from a PAC compliance standpoint.
(02:11):
The what, it looks similar to what we did for a lobby audit where we’re looking, starting with the reports, the public filings of the PAC, going through what goes into those filings, the policies, the procedures, and the actual records of the contributions, both the money coming in and the money going out. And in that sense, it does look a little bit more like what I think people think of as a traditional audit because there is actual money flow in, money flow out. And looking at that is part of what we should be doing, but it’s not all of what you should be doing in a PAC compliance review.
(02:44):
Again, the cadence of this, there are some folks who will do it annually, others every couple of years and some less frequently than that, but it is a good practice to do pretty regularly in part because given the nature of PAC reporting, there’s real value to doing it sooner rather than later because if you do identify a discrepancy that requires an amendment, then the more time has elapsed since that discrepancy, the more amendments you’re going to have to do. And that can be a pain to have to do them.
Charlie Ricciardelli (03:12):
Yeah. In the lobbying context, we talked about annual versus every couple of years and thinking that’s every two years is probably a nice practice. I think there’s even more of a hook for that two-year period for the PAC where you’re doing it on a new election cycle, right? You’ve got new limits for the House members. So, I do think that’s probably the most common approach that we see, although you can certainly do it more frequently.
Tyler Rosen (03:37):
I agree with that. And then the why, again, it’s similar. We want to make sure that we can do well in an internal audit. We want to make sure that to the extent it’s being audited by an external, whether it’s the Federal Election Commission or a state regulator, that we have good answers for what they would want in an audit, don’t have things that are going to cause embarrassment or issues for the company, and then finally to make sure that we’re following the law, make sure we’re getting it right.
Charlie Ricciardelli (04:00):
Yeah. The only thing I’d add to that is you see a little bit more direct enforcement in this case. The chances of getting an FEC audit are not that low and increase with … there’s a point system at the FEC where if you’re filing a bunch of amendments and things are going wrong, you may find yourself in the midst of an FEC audit, which is not all that pleasant. So, as Tyler mentioned, getting out ahead of this and catching issues before they become so large that they’re going to earn you, “a bunch of audit points,” is pretty important.
Tyler Rosen (04:32):
So, as we did last time with the lobby compliance review here for our PAC compliance review, we are going to do a top 10 findings in a PAC compliance review. And we managed to make it through a whole episode last time without any “Saturday Night Live” references, so that was a small victory. We had to trade for Letterman, but we’re going to just proceed on a Letterman basis and do the top 10 findings for a PAC compliance review.
Charlie Ricciardelli (04:58):
Okay. So, I’m going to kick this off this time with our number 10 of our top 10 findings in a PAC compliance review or audit: stale checks. This comes up I would say in most audits that we do, you’re looking through the bank records, you’re looking at the FEC reports and you’ve written a check to Candidate Jones and often to the ether, it’s gone, it never got cashed. What happened? And it’s been a year or two years and nobody has any idea what happened to that check, it never got cashed. This needs to be addressed and it should be addressed.
(05:29):
There should be some procedure policy that you have for how you’re going to handle checks that just go out into the ether. If they’re not cashed after a certain period of time, you need to void those out, write them back into cash. You don’t want to continually have this discrepancy. And we’re going to talk about bank reconciliations and the importance of them in a bit, but you don’t want to have this discrepancy between your cash on hand that you’re reporting to the government and what’s actually in the bank.
(05:54):
So, whether it’s 60 days, 90 days, you should have a period after which you say, “Listen, we’re voiding this out. We’re writing it back to cash.”
Tyler Rosen (06:02):
Yeah, that was one of the things when I started doing these that always was surprising to me was that, given how desperately these campaigns and candidates and PACs want their money, how many stale checks you have sitting around. And then sometimes it gets lost or somebody misprocesses it. Maybe it shouldn’t have surprised me that there would sometimes be lack of organization with the folks handling the mail and handling the checks at some of these campaigns, but you do see a decent number of checks that end up just sitting there not being cashed.
(06:31):
Relatedly, top 10 findings number nine is check writing and check tracking issues. There’s actually two pieces to this and there’s been a little bit of an evolution. Starting in 2007, the FEC issued guidance or a safe harbor practice essentially on anti-embezzlement provisions because there were issues with political campaigns, but also PACs, having folks within the campaign embezzling money from the campaign or from the PAC. Essentially, the PAC treasurer or whoever handles the check writing writes themselves a check and absconds with the money.
(07:05):
And the thing that is darkly funny, although not if you’re in that situation, is that not only are the political committees the victim of this, they lose the money that got stolen from them, but they also were getting penalized by the FEC because they had false reports. They didn’t disclose this money got embezzled by our treasurer. They had discrepancies in their reports. And so, the FEC came up with guidelines, sound practices to reduce the risk of an inside threat with the checks, with having multiple people signing off on larger checks, things like that. The newer generation of this, and we’ve seen a fair amount of it. And so, I should say you should absolutely, as a PAC, have the safe harbor controls or something like it to protect yourself against embezzlement.
(07:51):
Not that any of your people would ever do that, but better safe than sorry. The other piece of it that we’ve been seeing, I would say more and more of in the last few years, is external threats to checks. Either being intercepted in the mail or sort of falling into the wrong hands at the receiving end where a check gets stolen and then is used to write fraudulent checks. I was reading a DOJ and postal inspector alert about this issue and there’s a difference between check cooking and check washing depending on how you alter the face of the check. But the bottom line is they get the check stock and then they write themselves checks from your PACs account.
(08:31):
And then you end up in the same situation where you think you’ve given $1,000 to a leadership PAC and somebody’s in fact stolen $20,000 out of your account and you’ve falsely reported the contribution to leadership PAC and your balance is now off. There’s actually a banking tool to help address that risk or reduce that risk positive pay, where essentially if your financial institution allows it, they will reconcile the checks that they are crediting against your ledger of the checks that you’re writing. And so, that’s a really good practice to have and it’s something that we’re seeing more and more is PACs adopting these protective banking practices to guard against the risk of being victimized by check theft.
Charlie Ricciardelli (09:12):
I will confess, I’ve not heard about check cooking or washing.
Tyler Rosen (09:15):
I hadn’t either. Look, this is a rigorous podcast, I do a lot of research for it and-
Charlie Ricciardelli (09:19):
Yeah. This is a lot of Google action.
Tyler Rosen (09:21):
It sounds like “Breaking Bad.”
Charlie Ricciardelli (09:23):
If I cook the check, you have to wash. Is that the deal? Excellent. Okay. Number eight, payroll deduction issues, which come in various flavors. I think the main takeaway is this is not necessarily a fire and forget system, right? You need to be thoughtful about using payroll deduction. Payroll deduction is obviously a key tool that almost all of our clients who have PACs are using. It allows you with appropriate authorization from an employee to deduct the amount of their periodic PAC contribution from their payroll and put it into the PAC.
(09:55):
But, we’ve got to make sure that we’re doing it properly and that begins at the beginning as everything does and continues on an ongoing basis. Number one, make sure you’re getting appropriate authorization. Make sure you’re retaining that for your records as part of your PAC record keeping. You got to know where those authorizations are. In addition, and this sounds kind of silly, count correctly, right? Know how many pay periods you have and how much people are allowing you to deduct out of their payroll and make sure that they’re not going to contribute in excess of the $5,000 per year limit by the end of the year.
(10:27):
We’ve seen this a couple of times where somebody forgot that they had more pay periods than they thought and they went over the limit and it’s a messy reimbursement and amendment process as a result.
Tyler Rosen (10:38):
It can be an issue if you have a two-week pay period because you may have a different number of pay periods in one year than another year.
Charlie Ricciardelli (10:47):
That’s right.
Tyler Rosen (10:47):
And, so, you can accidentally end up going over that way.
Charlie Ricciardelli (10:50):
And then finally, make sure you’re observing the 10-day limit. Once you pull those payroll deductions out, they need to get into the PAC bank account within 10 days, which seems fairly easy and maybe not obvious, but relatively easy. It can be challenging. If you’ve got a number of different affiliates and they’re collecting money different ways, different times, getting the plumbing right and making sure you’re reporting those contributions over within 10 days as the law requires can be complicated. So, make sure you’re keeping your eye on that as well.
Tyler Rosen (11:19):
Number seven, not specifying the election or JFC allocation. So, a joint fundraising committee, or JFC, is a vehicle for federal contributions that has become more popular in the last several years. Essentially, it allows one political committee to raise funds for multiple political committees. And your contribution to that JFC is then allocated under either a pre-set of waterfall or through an allocation that you specify, but it’s provided to the underlying committee. And it counts as a contribution both to the joint fundraising committee, but also to the underlying entities.
(11:57):
And so, it’s not enough to just give money to a joint fundraising committee without knowing how that money is going to be allocated. And, if it’s just a one-time thing, you’re only going to give to the involved committees one time during the relevant period. That is okay, it’s not good practice, but it’s okay. But when you start combining a contribution to a senator’s joint fundraising committee and then, later, a contribution to their campaign or to their leadership PAC, it’s very easy to then inadvertently to result in an excessive contribution because you don’t know where your joint fundraising contribution actually ended up.
(12:34):
Similarly, sometimes with not specifying the election, especially if you’re giving around the time of the primary, depending on when your check gets there, the campaign may think of it as for a different election than what you intended. And so, again, it’s a thing that can result in an inadvertent excessive contribution.
Charlie Ricciardelli (12:50):
Number six, it can also lead to some inadvertent problems of a different kind. Contributing to the wrong committee, which again may sound a little silly, but listen, some of these candidates have similar names, right? And [the PAC is named] Friends of Bob Jones or Committee to Re-elect Bob Jones. You just need to make sure that you’re giving to the right campaign, the right committee, the right candidate that you intend to. Just for the most obvious reasons, there are political reasons. You may not want to support the wrong Bob Jones, no offense to any Bob Joneses out there, but that wasn’t the intention. And now you’re supporting the wrong candidate.
(13:24):
There are other issues with this as well. Obviously, if you’re mixing up committee names you may have already given to that committee, maybe an excessive contribution. I have seen people with similar names in different jurisdictions. So, the PAC thinks you’re giving to a candidate for US House, Bob Jones, but you’re really giving to somebody in North Carolina, South Carolina, wherever it may be. And as we’ll talk about, there can be different ramifications from a filing perspective, permissibility perspective limits, etc.
(13:53):
So, the team needs to be very careful double-checking these committee names, checking them on the public record, making sure that the checks are going to the right place.
Tyler Rosen (14:02):
Yeah. You see it with some of these elaborately named leadership PACs that form the acronym of somebody’s name, but a lot of them sound like they all have the same six nouns like jobs, freedom, education, and just arranged in different ways to spell different people’s names. And so, you can end up giving to the wrong place and making sure that there’s a process where we’re verifying that it’s the right entity. Number five, problematic solicitation materials. And this, we should maybe start with saying what’s the right way of soliciting contributions from the restricted class of a company.
(14:37):
The solicitation needs to have disclaimers, there’s FEC-mandated language on every solicitation regarding things like coercion, about the fact that these are not tax-deductible, that there’s no coercion. There’s a bunch of requirements and, so, you have to obviously check the box that they’re included. The other thing that we want to think about is the substance of the solicitation itself. Is there anything in the solicitation letter that’s coercive? Is there anything that suggests a linkage with a government decision? And, so, it’s important that as part of a PAC compliance review that we’re looking at the substance of what people are being asked and why they’re being asked to give to the PAC.
Charlie Ricciardelli (15:16):
Yeah. And I think one of the more common themes is the coercion aspect. And I’m not suggesting that we’re seeing a lot of solicitation materials that are in fact coercive or intended to be, but you want to exercise caution because hopefully you have a vibrant, robust PAC with a lot of members. But, I guarantee you, you’ve got a significant percentage of employees who are eligible who aren’t giving to the PAC. And there’s some sliver of those non-members who may not even like it and they may not be a fan of PAC’s political contributions in general.
(15:48):
And so, they’re looking for a reason to throw a flag on one of these solicitations. So, you do want to be really cautious to stay far afield of anything that could be misinterpreted or mischaracterized as coercive. Similarly, we tend to think of this in the negative connotation, meaning obviously nobody would say this, but the basic premise is give or else, right? Or there’s something bad that will happen to you from a job action perspective if you don’t contribute or you don’t give enough. Similarly, it’s equally inappropriate to suggest that giving will enhance their job prospects. So, you want to think about that. Both sides of that coin are equally problematic.
Tyler Rosen (16:26):
Yeah. And it can be an issue, not just under campaign finance law, but in an employment action. So, let’s say one of the folks that you solicit for the PAC the company has to let go of for unrelated reasons. Well, depending on what the solicitations look like, they may say, “Well, I was penalized because I didn’t give to the PAC and the solicitation said that if you want to get ahead in the company, you need to give to the PAC.” And so, you don’t want to create a bad set of evidence that somebody could use in an employment action later on.
Charlie Ricciardelli (16:52):
And another, we could spend all day on this and we shouldn’t, I guess, but it does raise a point. And that’s why outside the context of written solicitations, if you’re doing oral solicitations, you’re going to need to make sure those are scripted and you keep a record of what was said because Tyler’s exactly right. The most common way that this is going to surface where somebody is going to allege a coercive solicitation is if they had to be let go for some other reason. And you don’t want to end up in a he said- he said situation where nobody’s really sure what went on in the room.
(17:21):
If you have, “Hey, this was the script. These are the bullet points our folks were trained to stick to them.” That’s very helpful from an evidentiary perspective. Number four is something we could also spend an entire hour on.
Tyler Rosen (17:33):
Could we? I couldn’t. Yeah, I couldn’t.
Charlie Ricciardelli (17:35):
Well, our analysts could. Yeah. Our reports analyst could spend an hour on it, I will spend 30 seconds on it. Bank reconciliations, and this is an important part of your PAC compliance program. You should be doing bank reconciliations, it’s part of the audit. Anytime we do an audit, we do bank reconciliations. What are we talking about when we talk about this? Essentially, it means you’re reconciling your FEC reports, in this case when we’re talking about federal PACs, with your bank account and making sure that the numbers match. But if they don’t match, we can explain why they don’t match and that we know exactly why.
(18:10):
So, if the cash on hand that you’re reporting to the FEC is higher or lower than the cash on hand of the bank account, we can identify the reason for that. Well, we have this deposit in transit and we know that we’re getting this payroll that hasn’t hit the bank account or there’s a check that hasn’t been cashed out there, it’s pending. And again, as we talked about with stale checks, maybe it’s time to write that back in and that’s when you can identify these problems. But it’s key to make sure that you’re doing that.
(18:39):
And it’s a safeguard against these problems that can accumulate and snowball over time to the point where now all of a sudden, if you’re not doing a bank rec, three months, three years, 10 years later, your cash on hand disparity is now $150,000. And, oh my god, we’re going to have to go back and either file a zillion amendments to fix this because it’s a ripple effect. One report affects another, or maybe you take the position you do a one-time amendment and take the hit with the regulator. Anyhow, doing this bank reconciliation is a key component of safeguarding against that type of risk. And it’s just essential. It’s table stakes. You’ve got to be doing this.
Tyler Rosen (19:19):
Yeah. And we have seen some horror shows with that where we took on a client that had a PAC that had not been doing a reconciliation and trying to do forensic accounting to figure out what went wrong, when and how to come up with, just to even have the ability to go back and amend reports. So, we’ve seen cases where the original sin in the reporting discrepancies go back more than 20 years, it can be incredible and it’s not a good place to be in. And I think one way that you sometimes see people go down this road is that instead of doing a bank reconciliation, they’ll reconcile the FEC reports with an internal ledger of their own activities.
(19:58):
Which is like it’s a way of making sure you didn’t do any typos when doing the FEC report, but you’re not tying it back into reality. Ultimately, reality is what’s in that bank account. And if you’re just doing it off of some paper ledger, then you’re setting yourself up for a potentially very unpleasant situation of trying to figure out “Gosh, where did the money go and how do we fix it?” Number three would be soliciting the wrong people. And so, as part of a PAC compliance review, we want to look not just at what the solicitations say, but who they’re going to and how the company manages the process for figuring out who they go to.
(20:36):
Because under federal law, a corporate PAC can only solicit certain people. They can only solicit the company’s executive and administrative personnel and shareholders and some others, and they also are not allowed to solicit foreign nationals. There’s FEC rules, the latter is a felony. And so, it’s really important that the company has a way of ensuring that folks who shouldn’t be solicited aren’t solicited and that usually involves working with HR. And so, vetting the process that HR is doing to scrub the lists and make sure that only PAC eligibles are being solicited is very important.
Charlie Ricciardelli (21:15):
And sometimes not as easy as you would think, especially in the foreign national context. And I feel like a few times a year I end up on the phone with a client, the GR folks, the PAC manager, and the company’s HR team. Listen, to their credit, I understand that they have concerns about privacy, etc., and they don’t want to release information about employees that they shouldn’t, but you’ll often get pushback from the HR folks saying, “Well, we can’t give you the required forms in order to determine whether someone’s a foreign national or not, it’s private.”
(21:47):
But you have to get it and you’ve got to push hard, sometimes it takes escalating it up to the general counsel’s office. So, if you encounter that initial pushback, bring in outside counsel, bring in the GC’s office because you simply have to do it in order to comply with the law. Number two, missing filings. So, when we go through these audits, and I alluded to this in the context of, “Well, oops, we gave to the wrong committee or the wrong candidate,” and this person happened to be in a different jurisdiction.
(22:17):
If your PAC is active at the state level, do you have your eye on potential PAC filings that you’re going to need to make? And are you up to date with those filings? Are you up to date with reports? We’re focusing obviously on the FEC, but it’s great that you’re able to use the federal PAC in a number of states, but you’ve got to make sure that you are observing those filing requirements that the PAC is appropriately registered, that it’s filing its state reports. And when you go through this audit process, you should be collecting those as well and making sure that they are equally in good shape.
(22:50):
By the way, this is the campaign finance angle. You need to make sure you have a good process to comply with the state’s campaign finance law where you’re active. Don’t forget to the extent your company has state or local government contracts, those PAC contributions in states or localities can trigger pay-to-play laws, right? They can knock your company out of business with government entities in those jurisdictions on a strict liability basis because of state contributions. So, somebody needs to be vetting those not only for campaign finance, for limits, for reporting purposes to get the filings right, but also state and local pay-to-play law concerns.
Tyler Rosen (23:26):
All right. What you’ve all been waiting for, the number one top finding in a PAC compliance review: not having or following governance documents.
Charlie Ricciardelli (23:34):
Can I add, I know this is our title, we should have at or being able to find, which is often like not having is the same. Okay.
Tyler Rosen (23:44):
We’ll sometimes ask to start this, give us your PAC bylaws. And it’s like the day you show up at school without your homework. My dog ate the PAC bylaws. When a client is able to identify them, they may well have like fax markings on them or be written in like Courier font. You can tell these things they’re quite old a lot of the times. And when you try to match up what it says in the bylaws with what the PAC’s actual processes are for approving contributions, for making contributions, for who they’re willing to give to, for who they say they’ll solicit. Oftentimes the two have absolutely no connection to each other.
(24:27):
And how many people are on the board, how the board gets chosen? All that stuff should be in the governing documents. It’s not required by law, to be very clear. The Federal Election Commission requires that a PAC has a treasurer, it does not require that it has bylaws. We recommend bylaws. Bylaws are a very good thing to have from a governance standpoint. I think it’s increasingly important to your employees that they know that there’s a process, a set of rules for the operation of the PAC. The consequence of that is you have to follow them, right?
(24:57):
And so, making sure that you have them and are following them, and you can always change them. Oftentimes, the answer is we’ll take the bylaws and either adjust what we’re doing to fit the bylaws, but more often it’ll be adjust the bylaws to land on the process that the PAC is actually using to run itself.
Charlie Ricciardelli (25:16):
I agree. Obviously, as Tyler said, you don’t have to have them, there isn’t a legal requirement, but it is important. It’s a governance issue and it’s giving people the assurance that this is a professionally run, managed organization. And with all the scrutiny on corporate political activity, being able to answer, as Tyler said to your employees and say, “Listen, we have a robust process. Here’s how we evaluate things. Here’s how we handle the money that we’re taking in from our employees is important.” Senior management, your board, they all care about how this is being run and just shrugging your shoulders and being like, “Well, Jack does it” is not a reassuring state of affairs.
(25:49):
So, you want to have them, you want to follow them. I think in the pecking order, the only thing worse than not having them is having them and not following them. So, to skip ahead to the so what, so what is next? Let’s go to the so what.
Tyler Rosen (26:05):
Let’s go to the so what. We’re done with the top 10. So what?
Charlie Ricciardelli (26:07):
We’re done with the top 10. You’ve gone through this process, you’ve gathered the documents, you’ve identified these issues. Obviously, as we said in the lobby audit context, you have to fix them. Typically, number one, again, you may be filing some amendments. If you’ve identified gaps in this process that resulted in inaccurate reports with the FEC, you may have to go back and amend them. You might have to update your statement of organization, by the way. Is your treasurer still the treasurer? Did you file this thing in 1988 and you forgot about amending it?
(26:34):
So, you’ve got to get your public facing reports in order and then fixing the internal processes. And that often will start with like, “Hey, I’m pretty excited we had bylaws, we found them, that’s all great, we got an A on that,” but they don’t really reflect reality anymore. So, let’s get them to a place where they do. Do we have procedures? Do we need to update those? Do we need to make them more clear? And that goes for bylaws and procedures. Your bylaws, it’s okay to have them a little bit general, but how do you actually make contribution decisions?
(27:04):
Spell that out, and then in terms of the implementation, again, training is key here, right? Making sure that the folks who are charged with gathering all this information, compiling, filing these reports really understand all the requirements on them and what goes into it. In addition to the folks who are charged with deciding on where to make those contributions and interfacing with the government officials, they need to be trained through a slightly different filter. But everybody, depending on what you find in the audit or even if you didn’t find anything, it’s always good to periodically refresh all the compliance requirements for the relevant folks.
Tyler Rosen (27:41):
Great. Well, I think we’ve covered it. Everybody’s got their PACs solved now.
Charlie Ricciardelli (27:45):
That’s right. So, thank you. And especially thank you if you stuck with us through the lobby compliance or check-up review and the PAC component as well. If you didn’t recommend going back and giving that a listen or watch, you can see Tyler’s sweater. But in any event-
Tyler Rosen (27:58):
It’s a nice sweater.
Charlie Ricciardelli (27:59):
... yeah. Thank you for joining us.
Tyler Rosen (28:01):
It’s a quarter zip.
Charlie Ricciardelli (28:01):
It’s a quarter zip, fair. Thanks for joining us. Please like the podcast, subscribe to the podcast, tell your friends, but thanks for joining us again.
Voiceover (28:09):
Thank you for joining us for today’s episode of The Lobby Bar, a political law podcast. If you like what you’re hearing, be sure to subscribe in your favorite podcast app so you don’t miss any future conversations. Additional information about Skadden can be found at skadden.com.
Listen here or subscribe via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or anywhere else you listen to podcasts.
