While some states are still sorting out the winners and losers in last week's midterm elections, Washington D.C. attorney Ki Hong has a unique view of corporations and their involvement in politics.

As partner and head of the political law group at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Hong advises major corporations on the legal issues they face when engaging in government affairs or government procurement, including federal and state campaign finance, lobbying, gifts, ethics, conflict-of-interest and pay-to-play laws. Hong advises three of the Big Four accounting firms, 9 of the 10 largest U.S. banks and most of Wall Street, according to the firm.

After the elections, Corporate Counsel interviewed Hong about his work and the trends he sees, especially in corporate political spending. Here are excerpts from that interview, edited for clarity and length.

Corporate Counsel: As head of the political law group, do companies or their general counsel contact you to discuss their corporate political spending? 

Hong: Yes, though it depends on the corporate structure. In part, to the extent the corporation has hired personnel to deal with political laws, general counsel don't get involved directly.  However, if they have no staff in this area, general counsel tend to contact us directly, given that these issues are high profile and can have a reputational impact.

What types of questions do they ask you?

General counsel tend to call with technical issues, given the counterintuitive nature of these laws. They realize even small violations can raise significant reputational challenges.

General counsel also call regarding larger principles and laws such as Honest Services Fraud and public corruption laws that have both a more significant penalty as well as reputational issues.

Are those calls increasing or decreasing and why? 

The volume of inquiries is increasing as more corporations' executives and employees are politically active, especially given the polarizing nature of the midterm election and the extreme interest in both parties in the outcome.

As more executives become involved in politics, either by being individually outspoken or deciding to run for office, there has been a spike in questions on how to engage and comply with these laws, as well.

What are the recent trends you are seeing in corporate political spending?

Multiple media reports have noted spending has decreased at the federal level during this election cycle. While I am not seeing firsthand a decrease in federal contributions, I understand on the whole they may be decreasing. At the state and local levels, political spending is at the same or higher levels compared to prior election cycles.

[Note: The Wall Street Journal reported in October that an analysis by the nonprofit Center for Political Accountability found that about 36 percent of 414 companies in the S&P 500 since 2015 said they won't engage in one form of spending on political activity, up from 32 percent a year ago and 25 percent in 2015.]

Do you think there is a link between growing transparency and decreasing corporate political spending?

No, given that corporations have for the most part assumed when they give that their contributions will become public with a direct or indirect disclosure at some point. This is especially true with regard to large corporations making contributions to (c)(4) organizations [politically active nonprofit groups, known as 501(c)(4)s].

The recent CREW v. FEC case imposed additional transparency requirements on (c)(4)s. [On Aug. 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the Federal Election Commission, requiring disclosure of independent contributors of over $200 who had funded a (c)(4) group's expenditures.]

Why do you think corporate political spending is decreasing?

Corporations tend to give to incumbents. To the extent contributions are decreasing at the federal level, it is mostly due to political uncertainty as opposed to transparency. [And] to the extent there are many viable challengers, corporations may decide to sit out a particular race.

Do you find that companies generally want to be transparent about their contributions?

Yes, they operate under the assumption their political spending and contributions will become public. Regardless of reporting requirements, publicly-traded companies know the contributions may eventually be disclosed.

Read more:

Transparency on Corporate Political Spend Is Trending, but Risks Loom Large