It turns out that the Constitution is bad for the lobbying business.

Ron Calzone was exercising his right to petition the government when he ran afoul of the Missouri Society of Government Consultants, the professional association of lobbyists who serve special interests in the hallways of the state legislature.

The rancher and small business owner has met with lawmakers to discuss individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. No one pays him, and Calzone never plies politicians with gifts. And somehow, this good government routine got on the nerves of the lobbyist association that does its business in Jefferson City.

His free speech, that conglomerate argued in a complaint to the Missouri Ethics Commission, amounts to a violation of state transparency laws. Calzone never registered as a lobbyist, even though he is involved with Missouri First — a nonprofit with no financial resources.

And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agrees. In a 2-1 ruling, as the Kansas City Star reports, the court found that Calzone was engaged in lobbying activity and that state interest in transparency means that even an unpaid lobbyist must register and file regular lobbying reports.

“Though the lobbyists may not be receiving money, unpaid lobbyists could still offer things of value to legislators, creating a sufficiently important governmental interest in avoiding the fact or appearance of public corruption,” the court ruled. “Furthermore, the government and the public have a sufficiently important interest in knowing who is pressuring and attempting to influence legislators, and the ability to pressure and influence legislators is not limited solely to paid lobbyists.”

But of course, the ability to pressure legislators isn’t limited to paid lobbyists. It’s an enumerated right for everyone in the U.S. Constitution. If those robed judges are unfamiliar, I suggest they revisit the constitutional amendment enshrining the right to petition government for the redress of grievances, a liberty echoed in Missouri's constitution.

The problem is that the definition of an unpaid lobbyist is so broad to be laughable. The registered lobbyist influences the legislator with dinners and drinks. Others do the same with editorials, phone calls, and handwritten letters.

The Eighth Circuit can’t really believe the state has an interest in knowing how everyone is trying to influence their government. Will they make journalists register? Cranky citizens calling about potholes? Third-grade students writing their state representatives for the first time?

This wasn’t lost on at least one of the judges. In his lone dissent, Judge David Stras wrote that the ruling “endangers the free exchange of ideas.” He fears that the overly broad definition pushed by his colleagues applies to citizens who make trips to the state capitol for one of the so-called “lobby days,” dates set aside for advocacy groups to petition their lawmakers.

But the real danger, which Stras hits on his dissent, is the proliferation of weaponized ethics complaints.

“Indeed, a political adversary, an unscrupulous government official or even a legislator tired of being held accountable could simply submit a complaint to the [ethics] commission accusing a politically active citizen of lobbying ... without first registering as a lobbyist,” Stras wrote. “It may just be simpler for a citizen to skip a lobbying day or pass up the opportunity to call a legislator rather than having to complete tedious paperwork or risk sizable fines and criminal penalties.”

Unfortunately, it seems the Eighth Circuit will allow lobbyists to throw up barriers to entry to protect their business model. Inexplicably, and somehow in the name of transparency, that court privileges special interests of over constitutional rights.