Court to Review Lobbying Disclosure Law

September 11, 2001 -- A federal appellate court will hear arguments Friday in a challenge to part of the new lobbying disclosure rules that could have broad implications for the regulation of the influence industry.

If the three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rules in favor of the challenge -- brought by one of the nation's largest industry groups, the National Association of Manufacturers -- it could set a higher judicial standard of review for lobbying rules and threaten some existing lobbying reporting requirements.

"If a higher standard were to be set, that would certainly call into questions a lot of lobbying laws," said Tara Malloy, an associate counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, which filed a brief urging the court to uphold the new rules. "It would be troubling."

The case centers on a specific provision of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 that requires private associations to list the name and identifying information of active members contributing more than $5,000 a quarter toward lobbying.

NAM argues that this requirement violates constitutionally-protected first amendment rights. "It is radically untailored, needlessly burdening long-standing groups when its target is the short-term secret of ad-hoc coalitions," lawyers for the organization wrote in a brief.

Though the case itself is narrow, NAM's argument asks the judges to define the legal standard of review a court must give any regulations on lobbying. What that means is that if the court requires a stricter review, the government will have a greater burden to prove the constitutionality of any new lobbying regulations. And because many earlier rulings on lobbying have relied on a less strict standard, those laws could face renewed challenges.

"This is one of the rare opportunities for the courts to delve into the extent to which government can regulate this constitutionally protected activity," said Jan Baran, an election law attorney representing NAM.

The district court judge sided with the government at the trial court level, but NAM appealed.