Constitutional Law

Wis. board adopts emergency campaign-finance disclosure rule

By By The Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. ? The board that regulates elections in Wisconsin adopted an emergency rule this week that could weaken the public's ability to know who is behind shadowy campaign attack ads.

On Dec. 22, the Government Accountability Board unanimously approved the revised rule over objections from a government watchdog group and the state's largest teachers union, which had argued there was no need to take action now given that the state Supreme Court had yet to act on a challenge to the same rule.

The rule in question had required groups running those ads to disclose their financing if they aired the ads 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. The revised version states that only ads clearly advocating for the election or defeat of a certain candidate will be regulated.

The retired judges who make up the board said even without the language they removed, there would be more disclosure about who is behind campaign spending. It will just be done on a case by case basis, instead of forcing every group that runs an ad close to an election to be subject to the additional disclosure.

Three lawsuits were filed challenging the language that was removed and other parts of the new reporting requirements, arguing they restricted free speech.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in March related to a lawsuit filed by a variety of Wisconsin tea party groups, Americans for Prosperity, the MacIver Institute for Public Policy and the Wisconsin Prosperity Network.

There was no need for the board to take action now, given that the state Supreme Court has yet to hear the case and could undo the board's action, argued Matt O'Neill, an attorney for the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state's largest teachers union.

"There's really no imminent threat," he said, noting the Supreme Court already ordered temporary enforcement of the rule while the case is pending.

He and Mike McCabe, director of the watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said they believed the proposal to require more disclosure for the attack ads was constitutional and would withstand the legal challenge.

The people of Wisconsin need for the rule to take effect and work to shine light on the millions of dollars spent by outside groups to influence the state's elections, McCabe said. He estimated about $20 million was spent by outside groups in last year's election.

Judge Gordon Myse, the election board chairman, said the board remained committed to requiring as much transparency in campaign spending as is possible under the law.

"The public has a right to know who is spending money and for what political purpose," he said.

Board director Kevin Kennedy said eliminating that portion of the rule now, while the broader case was pending in the Supreme Court, would help strengthen the state's argument and show how it intends to apply the law.

A second lawsuit is pending in federal court in Milwaukee filed by Wisconsin Right to Life. That lawsuit was broader in that it also challenged a separate requirement limiting the amount individuals can give political action committees to $10,000.

The board's Dec. 22 action could mean the end of a third lawsuit, filed by the liberal One Wisconsin Now and the conservative Wisconsin Club for Growth, which only challenged the wording that was removed. That case is likely to be dismissed, depending on what the Supreme Court does, said the group's attorney Mike Wittenwyler.

Full post as published by First Amendment Center on December 23, 2010 (boomark / email).