Earl Warren

Name: United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court
Author: Earl Warren

United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Earl Warren. It explores elements such as legislation, the Lobbying Act and Congress.

Quotes from United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court (Earl Warren)

Earl Warren, United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court

“ Otherwise the voice of the people may all too easily be drowned out by the voice of special interest groups seeking favored treatment while masquerading as proponents of the public weal. This is the evil which the Lobbying Act was designed to help prevent. [16]
Toward that end, Congress has not sought to prohibit these pressures. It has merely provided for a modicum of information from those who for hire attempt to influence legislation or who collect or spend funds for that purpose. It wants only to know who is being hired, who is putting up the money, and how much. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court

“ Construed in this way, the Lobbying Act meets the constitutional requirement of definiteness. [15]
Thus construed, §§ 305 and 308 also do not violate the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment-freedom to speak, publish, and petition the Government.
Present-day legislative complexities are such that individual members of Congress cannot be expected to explore the myriad pressures to which they are regularly subjected. Yet full realization of the American ideal of government by elected representatives depends to no small extent on their ability to properly evaluate such pressures. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court

“ In construing the Act narrowly to avoid constitutional doubts, we must also avoid a construction that would seriously impair the effectiveness of the Act in coping with the problem it was designed to alleviate.
To summarize, therefore, there are three prerequisites to coverage under § 307: (1) the 'person' must have solicited, collected, or received contributions; (2) one of the main purposes of such 'person,' or one of the main purposes of such contributions, must have been to influence the passage or defeat of legislation by Congress ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court

“ The Government urges a much broader construction-namely, that under § 305 a person must report his expenditures to influence legislation even though he does not solicit, collect, or receive contributions as provided in § 307. [8] Such a construction, we believe, would do violence to the title and language of § 307 as well as its legislative history. [9] If the construction urged by the Government is to become law, that is for Congress to accomplish by further legislation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court

“ In making this decision, we judge the statute on its face. See United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 6, 12, 67 S.Ct. 1538, 1541, 1544, 91 L.Ed. 1877. The 'invalidity' of the Lobbying Act is asserted on three grounds: (1) that §§ 305, 307, and 308 are too vague and indefinite to meet the requirements of due process; (2) that §§ 305 and 308 violate the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to petition the Government; (3) that the penalty provision of § 310 (b) violates the right of the people under the First Amendment to petition the Government. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court

“ If it were otherwise-if an organization, for example, were exempted because lobbying was only one of its main activities-the Act would in large measure be reduced to a mere exhortation against abuse of the legislative process. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court

“ It will depend on the type of activity in which they engage, so far as legislation is concerned. * * * It (the Act) affects all individuals and organizations alike if they engage in a covered activity.' (Italics added.) ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Earl Warren, United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court

“ The Senate and House reports accompanying the bill were identical with respect to↑ See the Act's separability clause, note 18, infra, providing that the invalidity of any application of the Act should not affect the validity of its application 'to other persons and circumstances.'↑ Both the Senate and House reports accompanying the bill state that the Act '* * * does not apply to organizations formed for other purposes whose efforts to influence legislation are merely incidental to the purposes for which formed.' S.Rep.No.1400, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 27; Committee Print of H. Rep. ”

Earl Warren

Summary

Quotes from United States v. Harriss — Opinion of the Court (Earl Warren)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature