Brochure About the NOW Economic Boycott Campaign
ca. 1978
Add to Favorites:
Add all page(s) of this document to activity:
This brochure advertises the National Organization for Women's (NOW) Economic Boycott Campaign. NOW and ERAmerica organized the Economic Boycott Campaign as part of their work promoting ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The brochure invites organizations to pass a resolution supporting the campaign, and to refrain from holding conventions in any of the states that had not ratified ERA. There is a tear-away section to mail in for more information.
This document was presented as an exhibit in the district court case State of Missouri v. National Organization for Women, Inc. (NOW). The case was filed in U.S. District Court in 1978 by John Ashcroft, then Attorney General of Missouri. Ashcroft produced a 10-page complaint against NOW and ERAmerica, that alleged conspiracy, along with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (outlawing monopoly business practices) and the Clayton Act (prohibition of anti-competitive mergers, pricing, and unethical corporate behavior).
Ashcroft’s target, ERAmerica, was a nationwide coalition of civic, labor, religious, and women’s organizations that organized in the mid-1970s to promote ratification of ERA. The organization also helped with strategizing an Economic Boycott Campaign in states that failed to ratify the amendment.
The strategy behind the boycott was clearly defined with specific goals, as noted in the Guidelines for Action, that were distributed to NOW chapters. Many states were hit hard with cancelled conventions and faced economic challenges. Some states, like Missouri, faced a double-down effort as its two major cities, Kansas City and St. Louis, were popular large convention sites at the time.
An extensive list of organizations that signed onto the Boycott included: American Association of University Women, American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Government Employees, American Jewish Committee, American Library Association, Communication Workers of America, Latin American Studies Association, League of Women Voters, National Council for Social Studies, National Education Association, Parents Without Partners, Soroptomist International, United Auto Workers, and the Young Women’s Christian Association.
According to exhibit documents in the case, estimated revenues lost in major cities included: $12 million in Atlanta; $21 million in Chicago; $6 million in Miami; and $13 million in New Orleans (the equivalent of over $200 million today with inflation).
In 1979, U.S. District Court Judge Elmo Hunter found in favor of the defense (NOW and ERAmerica). That decision was appealed by the Missouri Attorney General’s office. The Appeals Court upheld the lower court’s findings and dismissed the case in March 1980. Ashcroft then sought an opportunity before the U.S. Supreme Court by asking for a review; his request was denied.
At the same time as the Missouri case, Ashcroft and his team met with other states from the Economic Boycott list to encourage them to file similar lawsuits.
This document was presented as an exhibit in the district court case State of Missouri v. National Organization for Women, Inc. (NOW). The case was filed in U.S. District Court in 1978 by John Ashcroft, then Attorney General of Missouri. Ashcroft produced a 10-page complaint against NOW and ERAmerica, that alleged conspiracy, along with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (outlawing monopoly business practices) and the Clayton Act (prohibition of anti-competitive mergers, pricing, and unethical corporate behavior).
Ashcroft’s target, ERAmerica, was a nationwide coalition of civic, labor, religious, and women’s organizations that organized in the mid-1970s to promote ratification of ERA. The organization also helped with strategizing an Economic Boycott Campaign in states that failed to ratify the amendment.
The strategy behind the boycott was clearly defined with specific goals, as noted in the Guidelines for Action, that were distributed to NOW chapters. Many states were hit hard with cancelled conventions and faced economic challenges. Some states, like Missouri, faced a double-down effort as its two major cities, Kansas City and St. Louis, were popular large convention sites at the time.
An extensive list of organizations that signed onto the Boycott included: American Association of University Women, American Civil Liberties Union, American Federation of Government Employees, American Jewish Committee, American Library Association, Communication Workers of America, Latin American Studies Association, League of Women Voters, National Council for Social Studies, National Education Association, Parents Without Partners, Soroptomist International, United Auto Workers, and the Young Women’s Christian Association.
According to exhibit documents in the case, estimated revenues lost in major cities included: $12 million in Atlanta; $21 million in Chicago; $6 million in Miami; and $13 million in New Orleans (the equivalent of over $200 million today with inflation).
In 1979, U.S. District Court Judge Elmo Hunter found in favor of the defense (NOW and ERAmerica). That decision was appealed by the Missouri Attorney General’s office. The Appeals Court upheld the lower court’s findings and dismissed the case in March 1980. Ashcroft then sought an opportunity before the U.S. Supreme Court by asking for a review; his request was denied.
At the same time as the Missouri case, Ashcroft and his team met with other states from the Economic Boycott list to encourage them to file similar lawsuits.
This primary source comes from the Records of District Courts of the United States.
Full Citation: Brochure About the NOW Economic Boycott Campaign; ca. 1978; Case No. 78-4053CV; State of Missouri v. National Organization for Women, Inc.; Civil Case Files, 1938 - 1991; Records of District Courts of the United States, Record Group 21; National Archives at Kansas City, Kansas City, MO. [Online Version, https://docsteach.org/documents/document/now-boycott-brochure, April 25, 2024]Rights: Public Domain, Free of Known Copyright Restrictions. Learn more on our privacy and legal page.