Opinion ID: 1676570
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: registration, disclosure and reporting requirements, including prohibitions against defined conduct

Text: Appellant's attack upon KRS 6.809 relates to its payment of a $250 registration fee, which funds are to be utilized to supplement appropriations to the operation of the Ethics Commission. Such was determined, by the trial court, to be constitutional. This argument has now been abandoned. The trial court correctly enunciated that states may not impose a charge upon the exercise of a First Amendment right, but fees may be imposed upon activities protected by the First Amendment if the fees are necessary to achieve an underlying, governmental interest and such fees are used to defray the cost of policing such activity. Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 582, 103 S.Ct. 1365, 1370, 75 L.Ed.2d 295, 303 (1983); Bright Lights, Inc. v. City of Newport, 830 F.Supp. 378 (E.D.Ky.1993). The federal legislative history of lobbying statutes made an appearance in 1852 and 1867 to exclude from the floor of Congress those newspaper persons and former congressmen acting as lobbyists. Within a decade, lobbyists were required to register their identification with the house clerk. Practices such as bribery and large campaign contributions were curtailed by legislation. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 (18 U.S.C., Section 2) required a legislator to divulge any campaign contribution in excess of $100, and the names and addresses of contributors. Such was the predecessor, in form, to the present Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (FRLA). Regulation of lobbying activities, by several of the states, was directed primarily at what was essentially deemed to be corruption. In some instances, the magnitude of the problems prompted incorporation pertaining to lobbying provisions into state constitutions; i.e., New Hampshire, Alabama, Georgia, and California. At present, more than 30 states have statutes requiring various types of disclosure by lobbyists. One of AIK's basic positions is that the fundamental constitutional rights to freedom of association and freedom of petition, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution, are impacted by the Code of Ethics legislation. All parties agree with the premise that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution are designed to protect the rights of citizens in a democratic society to participate in the political process of self-government. The United States Constitution, by the First Amendment, provides, Congress shall make no law. . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This Amendment becomes applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Kentucky Constitution separately heralds the protection of these rights by the provisions of Section 1 of the Kentucky Constitution: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: . . . . . Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions. . . . . . Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance. AIK's specific arguments include broad attacks upon the statutory reporting and disclosure scheme imposed upon it by this legislation. It relies upon both constitutions, supplemented with the statement that the most fundamental protection of Kentucky citizens comes from its own constitution, with the United States Constitution serving as a floor. Kentucky is free to interpret its own constitution and afford its citizenry rights of petition and association in excess of those which are federally guaranteed. The conduct prohibited by KRS 6.811 and the registration, disclosure, and reporting requirements of the respective codes do not constitute impermissible abridgement of AIK's First Amendment right to petition and freedom of association. There remains no doubt that the right to associate for the advancement of political ideas is clearly protected by the United States Constitution. See NAACP. v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958). Assuredly, freedom of speech, being closely related to freedom of association and the right to petition the government, remains the highest of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights. See United Mine Workers of America, District 12 v. Illinois State Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217, 222, 88 S.Ct. 353, 356, 19 L.Ed.2d 426, 430 (1967). With, however, cautionary treatment, the government may regulate the exercise of the protected right of political associations when it is demonstrated, by the government, that a sufficiently important interest exists and there is employed a narrowly drawn means which avoids unnecessary abridgement of associational rights. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25, 96 S.Ct. 612, 638, 46 L.Ed.2d 659, 691 (1976). The trial court's standard of strict scrutiny to review any abridgement of plaintiff's First Amendment rights was utilized herein. NAACP, supra ; Buckley, supra ; and Federal Election Comm'n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 207, 103 S.Ct. 552, 559, 74 L.Ed.2d 364, 375 (1982). The challenged legislation requires similar information to that challenged in Buckley, supra , and reflects a limited infringement of AIK's First Amendment rights of association and petition. The federal lobbying controls discussed in United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 74 S.Ct. 808, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954), predate the concept of associational privacy. The United States Supreme Court in NAACP. v. Alabama, supra, fashioned a test to measure state actions which would impact upon associational privacy wherein the state must demonstrate a controlling interest in the disclosure requirements; and secondly, must prove that a substantial relationship exists between the state's interest and the information to be gained by disclosure. Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 80 S.Ct. 412, 4 L.Ed.2d 480 (1960). The Kentucky legislative acts, however, do not compel disclosure of membership in organizations engaged in advocacy and, therein, develops the emergence of deference and minimum of restriction. Although the legislation burdens the exercise of fundamental rights, the rights may yield where there is a subordinately governmental interest that is compelling. McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 105 S.Ct. 2787, 86 L.Ed.2d 384 (1985). To assess encroachments upon a basic constitutional right, a three-prong inquiry determines: First, does a statute pose a significant burden on a constitutional right? Secondly, does the statute further compel state interest? Thirdly, if so, does the statute further that interest too broadly, or in the alternative is the statute narrowly tailored to protect that interest? Buckley v. Valeo, supra . Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25, 96 S.Ct. at 638 provides: Yet, it is clear that [n]either the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute. . . . Even a `significant interference' with protected rights of political association may be sustained if the State demonstrates a sufficiently important interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgement of associational freedoms. (Citations omitted.) Additionally: The strict test established by NAACP v. Alabama is necessary because compelled disclosure has the potential for substantially infringing the exercise of First Amendment rights. But we have acknowledged that there are governmental interests sufficiently important to outweigh the possibility of infringement, particularly when the free functioning of our national institutions is involved. (Citations omitted.) Buckley, 424 U.S. at 65, 96 S.Ct. at 657. The Commonwealth of Kentucky has a compelling interest in insuring the proper operation of a democratic government and deterring corruption, as well as the appearance of corruption. This, we hold, is demonstrative of the most important of interests and employs means, closely drawn, to avoid unnecessary abridgement of associational freedom. We determine that the legislation does not violate the United States Constitution although a theorist may correctly assert that under Kentucky's Constitution the rights of association and petition may not be absolutely synonymous with that of the federal constitution. We are not convinced in this case that the freedoms of petition and association under the Kentucky Constitution should be afforded a broader scope or a different analysis than the corresponding rights under the United States Constitution. Commonwealth v. Foley, Ky., 798 S.W.2d 947, 953 (1990). While there is an absence of state authority relative to identical treatment as to the corresponding rights of association and petition under Section 1(6) of the Kentucky Constitution and that of the United States Constitution, there is a similarity between the wording of the state and federal constitutional rights of freedom of association and petition. The rights of association and petition under the federal constitution are closely allied to freedom of speech, which is subject to the closest of scrutiny. Buckley, supra . Despite appellant's persuasive argument, we prefer to hold that United States v. Harriss, supra , continues to represent a valid interpretation of constitutional law to be cited as authority by the state court as well as the federal court. It is recognized that some refinement has developed with the authority so mentioned. The registration, disclosure and reporting provisions of the Kentucky Code of Legislative Ethics and the Executive Branch Code of Ethics are constitutional in view of the purpose and intent expressed by the legislature in enacting such laws. We succinctly hold that the legislature has not sought to prohibit lobbying, but has provided modestly for a modicum of information from those who, for hire, attempt to influence legislation; or, who collect or spend funds for that purpose. For this Court to determine otherwise would be a denial, in large measure, to the legislature of the power of self-protection.