Washington, DC — The Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief yesterday in Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission, urging the Supreme Court of the United States to review the constitutional problems with lobbying registration and disclosure laws.
The Institute’s brief argues that the 1954 precedent of United States v. Harriss no longer reflects modern First Amendment jurisprudence and fails to protect the right to speak anonymously about matters of public policy.
“The premise of Harriss is wrong,” the brief explains. “The government cannot burden the First Amendment right to speak anonymously because disclosure is convenient for elected officials.”
The brief notes that the Supreme Court “has not heard argument in a [lobbying disclosure] case for nearly seventy years,” despite dramatic shifts in First Amendment doctrine that have “undermined the foundation on which Harriss stands.” It argues that this case presents “the perfect opportunity” for the Court to address how modern disclosure requirements burden core political speech.
The brief observes that lobbying disclosure requirements like those in Texas would have treated Alexander Hamilton as “an unregistered lobbyist based on insignificant details like whether James Madison reimbursed him for the cost of printing The Federalist Papers.” The brief contends that “these laws do not prevent any meaningful danger, but they chill the kind of speech that helped give birth to our Nation.”
The Institute challenges the Texas court’s decision for disparagingly calling the petitioner a “paid mouthpiece,” rather than grappling with the First Amendment implications of the state’s law. “Perhaps that kind of denigrating language with ‘an unsavory connotation’ is meant to obscure what’s really going on,” the brief suggests, noting that the petitioner “didn’t buy any legislators expensive gifts” or “curry favor by taking officials to a nice dinner.” Instead, he “simply spoke.”
The Institute’s brief rejects the rationale that lobbyist registration rules further similar informational interests as those for campaign speech. “[T]he justifications for disclosing campaign speech do not map onto private lobbying,” since lobbying through pure speech “neither evinces support for a candidate nor provides a ‘quid’ that might preview future quid pro quo corruption.”
“Absent any expenditures for the benefit of a public official, the government has no legitimate reason to require individuals to publicly identify themselves when they communicate directly with their elected officials about matters of public policy,” the brief concludes.
To read the Institute’s full Supreme Court amicus brief in Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission, click here.
About the Institute for Free Speech
The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment.
