January 30, 2006: ACLU-TN Opposes Outright Ban on Lobbyist Campaign Contributions

For Immediate Release
Monday, 30 January 2006

Contact: Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director
615-320-7142

ACLU-TN Opposes Outright Ban on
Lobbyist Campaign Contributions

Nashville - The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN) today urged the Tennessee General Assembly to abandon its proposed ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists on grounds that the ban is unconstitutional. The proposed ethics bill, now being considered during the special session on ethics, prohibits registered lobbyists from making campaign contributions of any amount.

ACLU-TN said such a ban violates the free speech protections of the U. S.
Constitution. "This proposed provision in the ethics bill," said ACLU-TN
Executive Director Hedy Weinberg, "appears to clearly violate the standards
set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, issued in
1976. In that case, the Court said, in effect, that in the political context
money is speech and thus campaign contributions enjoy a protection under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment.

The Buckley case indicates that government has the right to limit the amount of campaign contributions, but not outlaw them outright nor limit who can make those contributions. Weinberg said ACLU-TN supports most of the provisions of the ethics bill, but questions whether some sections might raise questions of equal protection.

"ACLU-TN supports the spirit of the ethics bill," Weinberg said, "specifically those provisions which provide for greater public disclosure of legislative and campaign activities, provisions requiring more detailed reporting of matters related to influence on legislation, and provisions insuring more open government. This support includes possible limitations on the amount of a campaign contribution any citizen (including a lobbyist) could make."

According to Weinberg, "All citizens have a constitutionally-protected right
to lobby. This comes from the First Amendment, which says that overnment
cannot infringe upon the ‘right of the people peaceably to assemble and to
petition the government for redress of grievances.’ Government must show a compelling interest in order to place restrictions on this right, and would
have to show an even further compelling interest in order to violate equal
protection and place such restrictions on one group (i.e. lobbyist) and not
on citizens in general."

Buckley v. Valeo was issued in a case involving a challenge to the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, and the Presidential
Election Campaign Fund Act. In its landmark ruling, the Supreme Court
recognized that restrictions on political contributions and expenditures (to
quote the ruling) "necessarily reduce(d) the quantity of expression by
restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration,
and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means
of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of
money." The Court then determined that such restrictions on political speech could only be justified by an overriding governmental interest.

In addition to opposing the ban on political contributions for lobbyists,
ACLU-TN urged the General Assembly to change the definition of lobbyists so that Tennesseans coming to the Capitol only on limited occasions would not be required to register as lobbyists simply because they are reimbursed for out-of pocket expenses incurred during the visits to the Capitol. Weinberg said, "such a requirement would place an undue chilling effect on the constitutionally-protected right of citizens to petition their elected
representatives."

- 30 -