Last Friday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed an amicus brief in support of the disclosure requirements of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA), joining the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen in defending the disclosure provisions. All were in response to the National Association of Manufacturers who earlier in February had filed suit in federal court challenging the disclosure provisions and saying they are "vague, overbroad and burdensome" and were in violation of the First Amendment.

HLOGA requires any organization actively participating "in the planning, supervision, or control" of lobbying efforts that ponies up more than $5,000 in a quarter to disclose their activities and expenditures. The law’s purpose is to shine a light on stealth lobbying and sham coalitions, pushing legislation such as those that are often promoted by groups like NAM. The law’s criminal penalties on groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobby efforts succeeded at getting their attention. NAM says that the clause in question is imprecise and impacts groups that it is not intended to target. They fear the law will also require it to disclose the names of its members. NAM has requested the court issue a preliminary injunction on the disclosure rules until the court decides the case.

OMB Watch’s blog reports that strong legal precedent exists on the disclosure of lobbyist activities, the 1954 United States v. Harris Supreme Court decision that upheld disclosure provisions in the Regulation of Lobbying Act. The court determined that Congress had a right to gather information about "those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose." Federal and state courts have used this precedent to almost unanimously upholding lobbying disclosure statutes based on the state interest in informing the public of the persons and groups that are attempting to sway the legislative process, according to OMB Watch.

In announcing their filing, CREW quoted U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) from a statement he made last year explaining the necessity of HLOGA’s lobbying disclosure requirement: "(As) President Harry Truman said, ‘The buck stops here.’ But with stealth lobbying we don’t know where ‘here’ is or whose buck it is."

0 Comments

As the Legal Times‘ Influence Blog predicted yesterday, the new lobbying and ethics law received its first legal challenge. Earlier today, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) announced it is suing the federal government over the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 saying the law’s lobbying disclosure rules are "vague, overbroad and burdensome" and infringe on the constitutional right of freedom of association.

Note that the law requires any organization actively participating "in the planning, supervision, or control" of lobbying efforts that ponies up more than $5,000 in a quarter to disclose their activities and expenditures. The law’s purpose is to shine a light on stealth lobbying and sham coalitions, pushing legislation such as those that are often promoted by groups like NAM. The law’s criminal penalties on groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobby efforts succeeded at getting their attention. NAM says that the clause in question is imprecise and impacts groups that it is not intended to target. They fear the law will also require it to disclose the names of its members. NAM has requested the court issue a preliminary injunction on the disclosure rules until the court decides the case.

In November, NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to the Senate secretary and the House clerk asking for a clarification in how lobbying disclosure rules will be applied.

0 Comments

Mother Jones‘ MoJo Blog and The Hill report on how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers are questioning the lobbying disclosure rules in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. (The law requires any organization actively participating "in the planning, supervision, or control" of lobbying efforts that ponies up more than $5,000 in a quarter to disclose their activities and expenditures.)

The trade groups say that the new rules violate constitutional protections of freedom of association by forcing them to open up their membership lists. So they sent a letter to the Senate secretary and the House clerk asking for a clarification in how it will be applied, charging that the law is vague and broad. Also, the fact the law imposes criminal penalties on groups that fail to accurately disclose their lobby efforts got their attention. "The price for being wrong is extremely high," said the Chamber’s top legal officer as quoted by The Hill.

One reason the new law was passed was to shine a light on stealth lobbying and sham coalitions pushing legislation such as those that are often promoted by groups like NAM and the Chamber.

MoJo cites the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), their tort reform effort that spends tens of millions a year in a stealth campaign attempting to influence state political and judicial races without declaring the expenditures to the IRS as required by law. Much of these expenditures were in the form of attack ads, all in an effort to "stack the deck with business-friendly judges and public officials," according to Public Citizen. From 2000 through 2004, the Chamber used sham state-level coalitions in an effort to hide the source of funds, and then didn’t disclose the grants to the local groups on its tax documents. Last year, Public Citizen complained to the IRS about the Chamber and its affiliate’s failure to report millions in taxable spending over the four years. This makes the Chamber’s and their trade group friends complaint regarding the new lobbying laws ring somewhat hallow, don’t you think?

0 Comments