WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) today filed suit in federal court challenging a major provision of lobbying legislation enacted last year on Constitutional grounds, asserting that the “vague, overbroad and burdensome” provision compromises First Amendment rights.
The case, National Association of Manufacturers v. Taylor, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The NAM also requested a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the provision, Section 207 of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, until the case is decided.
“This pernicious law should be seen as a potentially lethal threat to trade associations,” said NAM President John Engler. “It would require associations like the NAM to release the names of many members who contribute more than $5,000 for lobbying activities, violating their right to privacy. The penalties for failure to disclose this information are severe. It is safe to assume that as businesses become aware of the serious implications of this law, many of them will curtail their membership in trade associations. The effect will be to compromise their First Amendment right to express their opinions in the legislative process, and also undermine trade associations which play a critical role in the development of public policy by government.”
Engler said public disclosure of membership would create a host of issues for member companies. “The NAM’s lobbying activities often touch on hot-button topics such as global warming, nuclear power or labor relations that provoke responses beyond civil debate,” he said. “For example, anti-globalization forces are increasingly resorting to violent means to oppose both political leaders and officials in the private sector who support trans-national economic development. Similar consequences can result from being identified as actively opposing the core positions of organized labor. Taking policy positions that are unpopular with other groups may lead to boycotts, political pressure, shareholder suits, or other forms of harassment. Some areas of advocacy could even make member companies the target of litigation.”
Engler pointed out also that member-led organizations like the NAM with large, diverse memberships often reflect a diversity of opinion. “A company could very easily find itself being pilloried because of an NAM position that it does not actually support, and in fact may have opposed,” he said.
Engler said the so-called Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 offers a classic example of legislators taking aim at one target and hitting another by mistake. In this case, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) said the purpose of the legislation was to expose the activists behind “stealth lobbying campaigns.”
“There has never been anything stealthy about the NAM,” Engler said. “Everyone knows who we are and the industries we represent. But the real stealth organizations do not hire their own lobbyists. They rely instead on activities by the lobbyists of member groups and thus are not required to register and disclose under this act. Such a structure can be employed readily by so-called stealth coalitions to defeat the professed objective of the Amendments. Similarly, wealthy and politically powerful individuals can be active in support of such groups without being disclosed.”
Engler said the provision of the law challenged in the suit “substantially burdens the exercise of core First Amendment rights by the NAM, its members and similar organizations” and that “a sufficiently compelling problem with lobbying by stealth organizations cannot be demonstrated.”
In any event, Engler said, “no compelling interest justifies demanding, burdensome and intrusive disclosures by well-known, formally-organized and legally tax exempt organizations like the NAM. The provision is both under- and over-inclusive. Thus, it is invalid both facially and as applied to the NAM, its members and similar organizations.”