By Kevin Bogardus, The Hill, March 5, 2008

5 Mar 2008 // A number of public interest and watchdog groups have weighed in against a trade association’s lawsuit challenging a specific provision of the new ethics and lobbying disclosure law.

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Democracy 21 and Public Citizen filed an amicus brief last Friday opposing a challenge by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) against the 2007 lobbying disclosure law formally known as the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a separate brief on the same day opposing the NAM’s action.

The NAM opposes a provision in the law that calls for more lobbying disclosure, in particular its requirement that members of groups spending more than $5,000 a quarter on lobbying must be disclosed. Such disclosure could force the NAM and others to release their member lists to the public. That requirement is so intrusive that it violates First Amendment rights, the trade group argues.

Citing this argument, the NAM filed a lawsuit in federal court last month against the District of Columbia’s U.S. attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, as well as House Clerk Lorraine Miller and Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson — the officials responsible for administering the law.

But watchdog groups disagree with the NAM, saying the measure is constitutional and lawful.

“It is just a disclosure provision,” said Meredith McGehee, CLC’s policy director. “It is something that is very much in line with something that has been upheld by the courts.”

However, the NAM’s legal team has argued the provision is so vague that it could lead to more disclosure than necessary to comply with the law. The group also argues that its member corporations could run the risk of boycotts and litigation for policy positions they do not even support since their membership would have to be disclosed under the new law.

The NAM has consistently challenged the provision, lobbying against it before it became law last summer. And in November, the NAM, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Society of Association Executives , wrote a letter to Miller asking for more guidance on how to comply with the measure. According to the group, Miller’s answer was too vague, which led to their suit.

But others have found Miller’s guidance clear enough to meet the new disclosure requirements.

“They are looking for a legal argument to get rid of a law they just don’t like,” said Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director. “That’s not a legal theory. So that is why we weighed in.”

“Obviously, we don’t like it, but it is more than that,” countered Quentin Riegel, the NAM’s vice president of litigation.

“It does not allow our members to freely express themselves at meetings where we discuss lobbying.

“There have been real situations that have arisen where it has affected us, and it will continue to do so if the law is not changed,” he added.

In announcing the suit last month, NAM executives said they were talking with other trade associations to join them in the suit. But Jan Baran, a partner at Wiley Rein who is representing the NAM, said there are no indications that anyone else will file an amicus brief supporting the trade group’s position.

The suit’s presiding judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, has ruled on campaign finance and public corruption before. In 2004, she struck down several regulations authored by the Federal Election Commission relating to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, arguing that the rules undermined the law.

The NAM is preparing a formal response to the amicus briefs and expects to file it in the court docket next Monday.

Baran anticipates that the judge will rule before April 21 — the date that the NAM and others will have to disclose their members under the new lobbying disclosure law.