Supreme Court Must Protect Speech of Advocacy/Grassroots Groups

It's an important case and one that we believe the Supreme Court of the United States should consider.

The Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists recently filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of a Florida statute, attempting to regulate forms of political speech which it considers lobbying.  The Supreme Court is being asked to take Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. Division of Legislative Information Services of the Florida Office of Legislative Services. (No. 09-154)

We just filed an amicus brief in support of that petition.  Our arguments are clear:  certain provisions of the Florida statute violate the First Amendment by encompassing protected grassroots issue advocacy.  Because issue advocacy is considered political speech, restrictions on it are subject to strict scrutiny under the Constitution. To survive strict scrutiny, a proposed regulation must be supported by a compelling government interest. Although compelling government interests may justify regulation of express electioneering direction to vote 'for' or vote 'against' a specific candidate or direct lobbying directly meeting with a member of the legislature.  These interests have never justified the regulation of grassroots issue advocacy communicating to the public or specific constituents about a legislative matter.

In our brief, we point out that the Supreme Court has historically only upheld regulation of direct lobbying, and has never found a compelling government interest sufficient to support the regulation of grassroots issue advocacy. In the absence of any compelling interest to justify the Florida statute, we urge the high court to grant cert so it can fully address this significant First Amendment interest.

In addition, our brief urges the Court to provide definitive protection for grassroots issue advocacy, noting that failing to do so would undermine the governments interest in avoiding corruption. Large entities are well equipped to deal with extensive and confusing regulatory requirements, but small grassroots organizations or efforts are not. To bridge this disparity and help remove the appearance of corruption, it is vital for the Court to fully protect grassroots issue advocacy.

Finally, if the constitutional problems raised by the Florida statute are not addressed, impermissible restrictions will only increase. Advances in technology and the prevalence of grassroots issue advocates, along with extensive coverage of recent lobbying scandals, have rendered both traditional lobbying and grassroots issue advocacy tempting regulatory targets. Only the Court can stop that trend, and restore constitutional balance to citizen and grassroots advocacy.

It is our hope that the Supreme Court will take this case, overturn the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and provide clear guidance to regulators and strict protection for the core First Amendment freedoms embodied by grassroots issue advocacy.