Ronald Calzone v. Nancy Hagan, 909 F.3d 940

Ronald Calzone is sole officer/director/registered agent of Missouri First, a nonprofit that engages in legislative lobbying; he meets with legislators and discloses his affiliation but receives no compensation and claims to make no lobbying expenditures.
Missouri Ethics Commission received complaints alleging Calzone met statutory definitions of lobbyist under Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 105.470, 105.473; administrative proceedings ensued but one complaint was dismissed and another stayed.
Calzone sued the Commission in federal court seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction against enforcement of the Missouri lobbying-registration and reporting requirements as facially and as-applied unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The district court applied exacting scrutiny, found Missouri’s interest in transparency sufficiently important, held the registration/reporting requirements substantially related to that interest, and denied injunctive relief; it also rejected a vagueness challenge to the term “designated.”
The Eighth Circuit affirmed: it held exacting scrutiny appropriate for disclosure laws, rejected Calzone’s as-applied claim (including his attempt to focus on uncompensated/no-expenditure status as forfeited), and found the statute’s use of “designated” not unconstitutionally vague.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper level of scrutiny for lobbying-disclosure law	Calzone: strict scrutiny applies because core political speech is burdened	Commission: disclosure law; exacting scrutiny governs	Exacting scrutiny applies to disclosure requirements (Citizens United/Swanson)
As-applied challenge: may Missouri require registration/reporting from unpaid, uncompensated, no-expenditure advocate?	Calzone: statute is unconstitutional as applied to an uncompensated volunteer who makes no expenditures	Commission: transparency/anti-corruption interests apply regardless of compensation or expenditures	Rejected; court treated spending/no-spending focus as forfeited and held registration/reporting substantially related to transparency interest
Facial vagueness of term “designated” in definition of legislative lobbyist	Calzone: “designated” is vague because no formal board action named him a lobbyist	Commission: “designated” has ordinary meaning (chosen/appointed) and provides fair notice	Rejected; term has plain meaning and statute gives ordinary persons reasonable notice
Permanent injunction standard (merits and balance of harms)	Calzone argued likelihood of success on merits and irreparable harm	Commission argued public interest and minimal burden; disclosure furthers transparency	Because merits failed, injunction denied; court did not reach remaining equitable factors

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (disclosure requirements subject to exacting scrutiny rather than outright suppression of speech)
Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. en banc) (defines exacting scrutiny for disclosure laws)
United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (upholding lobbying-reporting law based on anti-corruption/ transparency rationale)
Minn. State Ethical Practices Bd. v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am., 761 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1985) (upheld lobbyist-registration requirement historically)
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (recognizes anonymity/identity disclosure issues under First Amendment)
McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (plurality) (reaffirms anti-corruption as important governmental interest)
Bank One, Utah v. Guttau, 190 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 1999) (standards for permanent injunction)