U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) filed an amicus curiae brief before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 that challenges the Texas Ethics Commission's (TEC) authority to enforce lobbying regulations against private citizens.
Their filing supports a petition before the court by Michael Quinn Sullivan, a private citizen in Texas who the TEC said should have registered as a lobbyist in 2014 when he communicated about legislative issues with members of the legislature and other Texas citizens.
The TEC fined Sullivan $10,000 at the time for failing to register. The commission concluded that Sullivan engaged in direct communications with legislators to influence legislative actions, thereby requiring that he register as a lobbyist. Sullivan, who led Empower Texans, a citizen activist organization, and now the Texas Scorecard news organization, has consistently contested the TEC characterization, asserting that his activities fell under journalism and citizen advocacy rather than formal lobbying.
After a series of legal battles, the Texas Supreme Court declined to hear Sullivan's lawsuits against the TEC in March 2024, effectively upholding the TEC's enforcement actions. In response, Sullivan has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that the TEC's structure and enforcement powers violate constitutional principles.
In their supporting brief, the senators argue that the TEC's actions pose a threat to First Amendment rights. They contend that requiring individuals like Sullivan to register as lobbyists merely for engaging in political discourse sets a precedent that could stifle free expression. They argue that the TEC requirements "undermine the very foundation of our democratic process, where open dialogue between citizens and their representatives is paramount."
Their brief also questions the constitutionality of the TEC's enforcement mechanisms, suggesting that the commission's structure may violate the separation of powers doctrine by combining legislative appointment with executive enforcement functions. They argue that the combination of powers "raises serious concerns about accountability and the potential for partisan influence in the enforcement of state ethics laws."
A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case could lead to a reevaluation of state ethics commissions' authority nationwide, particularly concerning their reach over individuals and organizations engaged in political advocacy.
In 2016, Wisconsin legislators dissolved their state’s Government Accountability Board (GAB), which operated like the TEC. Lawmakers in Wisconsin argued the GAB lacked accountability and transparency, and was used to target political opponents of favored elected officials.
Critics of the TEC say that overly broad definitions of lobbying and stringent enforcement suppress free speech in Texas and deter citizen participation in the political process. They argue for a more precise delineation between genuine lobbying activities and individual advocacy to protect constitutional rights.
