Lobby Law Development: Just When You (Almost) Had The New Disclosure Rules Figured Out, Here Come The Constitutional Challenges!
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.07.08
Yesterday the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) filed suit under the First Amendment to enjoin enforcement of a key provision of the Honest Leadership & Open Government Act of 2007. The Act requires associations that engage in lobbying to disclose the names of member organizations that contribute more than $5,000 in a quarterly period to the association’s lobbying activities, if the member actively participates in the planning, supervision, or control of such activities.
The new law applies to any entity that accepts money from other organizations to fund lobbying practices, but compliance will be particularly onerous for large associations. The new requirement has left many scratching their heads about whether to disclose the identities of members whose combined dues and voluntary contributions exceed $5,000, especially where the organization relies upon members to help run its operations, including activities that arguably support lobbying efforts.
NAM’s lawsuit challenges the new provision for failing, among other things, to define the term "actively participates." Organizations bear the responsibility of identifying members for whom disclosure is required, and disagreement between associations and members is a near certainty.
NAM seeks to enjoin the implementation of the new provision against any organization until the courts determine its legality. Lobbying reports are due February 14, 2008, but filers are not required to make the Act’s new disclosures challenged by NAM until the April 21, 2008 reporting deadline. NAM has requested that the district court rule on its motion for a preliminary injunction by April 14. Absent a favorable ruling, the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House are charged with reporting non-compliance to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. Violators risk civil and criminal penalties of up to $200,000 and/or five years imprisonment.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
