Apr 1, 2008 -- CQ Politics: Manufacturers Lobby Goes to Court to Keep Membership Rolls Private
By: Bart Jansen

The nation's largest association of manufacturing interests, in a bid to keep its 11,000 member companies confidential, wants a federal judge to overturn part of a new lobbying law before it has to start filing reports this month.

The first of the quarterly lobbying reports required by the new law (PL 110-81) is due April 21.

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is asking U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to strike down a portion of the law that would require NAM to reveal previously secret membership lists -- and the association wants her to issue her ruling by April 14.

The law requires the manufacturers and other umbrella groups to disclose every member that contributes at least $5,000 to lobbying efforts during a quarter and "actively participates in the planning, supervision or control of such lobbying activities."

The manufacturers group, which fields about 35 lobbyists, is challenging the law as too vague, saying it fails to define how much active participation is required to meet the disclosure threshold.

"The challenged provision subjects core First Amendment speech, petitioning and association to burdensome and intrusive requirements expressed in vague and sweeping terms that carry the possibility of substantial criminal and civil penalties," argued NAM's attorney, Thomas W. Kirby.

Failing to report the information carries penalties up to $200,000 and five years in prison.

In the manufacturers' court brief, the group argues that the 1958 civil rights case NAACP v. Alabama established a First Amendment right to collaborate anonymously to petition the government without fear of retaliation.

Anonymity is desirable even for participants in lobbying campaigns, the group argues, because some of its members might not want to be associated with "hot-button issues, including global warming and nuclear power," that occasionally spark "mob violence."

The law is also misguided, according to the manufacturers, because any umbrella group that hires another organization to lobby will not be required to disclose its own members, unlike NAM with its in-house lobbyists.

Government lawyers and advocacy groups point to a 1954 case, United States v. Harriss, that found that Congress is justified in gathering information about "those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose."

Congress weighed in on the case in a brief on behalf of Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson and House Clerk Lorraine C. Miller. In that brief, lawyer Irvin Nathan said that Congress has an interest in knowing who is trying to influence its decisions.

"Such disclosure sheds light on the organized interests that expend significant funds in trying to influence the legislative process and other government decisionmaking," Nathan wrote.

The brief notes that NAM itself created a number of ad hoc advocacy groups aimed at health policy, trade and taxes.

Advocacy groups such as the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen joined the case urging the court to uphold the law.

The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government noted recent corruption cases involving lawmakers and lobbyists and told the court that "lobbyists' ability to shield some of their lobbying activities from disclosure has contributed to these scandals."

No hearing has been scheduled yet in the case, but Kollar-Kotelly is not required to hold a hearing before making a ruling.