Litigation

In Minnesota, a Right to Hide Election Spending?

By Charlie Hall

In recent years, the Supreme Court has staunchly upheld the constitutionality of campaign disclosure laws, saying there is public value in letting voters know who is bankrolling attempts to sway elections.

In the wake of Citizens United, which allowed unlimited election spending by corporations, six states have toughened their disclosure laws. No state was more forceful than Minnesota, where the legislature voted unanimously to require corporations to disclose financial support of election-season advertising. Polls show overwhelming support for such laws.

Enter James Bopp (photo), in his latest attempt to claim that any campaign regulation, no matter how popular and common-sensical, violates the constitutional rights of beleaguered corporations.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Minnesota, Bopp and three groups, including one for-profit corporation, argued that the new law unconstitutionally burdens them with the prospect of … unacceptable paperwork.

According to Bopp’s suit, all three groups would spend money on independent electioneering efforts in the fall, even naming some candidates they are interested in supporting. But they object to forming a political committee, as the new law requires, and filing those infernal campaign disclosure reports that show who’s paying to play come election time. To quote Bopp:

“Political funds have burdensome and onerous registration, reporting and record-keeping requirements. … A political fund must elect or appoint a treasurer. … A political fund is required to … [file] a ‘statement of organization.’ … A political fund must keep an account of the sum of all contributions received.”

To which one is tempted to say, “Horrors!”

In the last decade, independent groups have been a leading source of runaway spending on state court elections, conservatively pumping $39.3 million into televised ads that support or attack candidates while remaining formally unaffiliated with those on the ballot.

One result has been degraded trust in the courts. Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court forced a West Virginia jurist off of a case, because there was a “serious risk of actual bias” in favor of a campaign benefactor who spent $3 million to help elect the judge.

Why are disclosure laws so important? Knowing who is spending to elect a candidate is vital to understanding a public official’s likely real agenda once elected, and to preventing possible quid-pro-quos.  In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld disclosure laws, even for independent groups, saying they “serve substantial governmental interests in informing the electorate and preventing the corruption of the political process.”

Paperwork is never pleasant, but given the benefits of letting voters know who is trying to buy influence in the courthouse and other government offices, it’s a pretty flimsy constitutional law for overturning the will of the people.  

For more on Bopp’s long-term agenda, see this revealing New York Times article.

Full post as published by The Gavel on July 08, 2010 (boomark / email).