Welcome to The Disclosure Digest! Keep an eye out for new editions published on Tuesdays through June 2022.
Federal lawsuit challenges Alaska donor disclosure law
On April 7, five Alaska residents and several independent expenditure groups filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Public Offices Commission in U.S. district court challenging donor disclosure requirements enacted through a 2020 ballot measure.
Background
Alaska voters approved Alaska Ballot Measure 2, an indirect initiated state statute, on Nov. 3, 2020. Before the measure’s enactment, section 15.13.040(j)(3) of Alaska’s code required entities to disclose the name, address, principal occupation, and employer of each contributor donating more than $250 per year if the contribution was for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election. Section 15.30.090(c) required political communications (such as ads) to feature disclaimers disclosing who paid for the communication and the paying entity’s largest contributors.
The measure amended the law to require entities contributing more than $2,000 to independent expenditure groups to disclose the sources of the contributions if those funds were derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts. It also required independent expenditure groups’ paid election communications to feature a disclaimer if a majority of the communication’s funding was derived from out of state money. The disclaimer must remain on screen for the entire TV or online communication. The measure also established open primaries and ranked-choice voting in general elections.
Lawsuit
On April 7, 2022, five political donors and independent expenditure groups including the Liberty Justice Center, the Alaska Free Market Coalition, and Families of the Last Frontier, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that portions of Ballot Measure 2 are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment.
In the suit, the plaintiffs said, “Vague, indeterminate, and overly burdensome campaign finance laws that burden everyday people with compliance burdens supporting political and issue entities violate their First Amendment rights.” The plaintiffs also said forcing organizations to disclose their donors could result in “reprisals against them and their business interests in the current climate of cancel culture.”
The lawsuit also challenged the communication disclaimer requirements. The plaintiffs said, “Compelling speakers to recite a government-imposed script is subject to strict scrutiny, which these provisions cannot survive,” and the “out-of-state disclaimer requirement also unduly discriminates against the First Amendment rights of the non-residents.”
In the final argument of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs said the requirements violate the right to free association: “By compelling non-profit organizations to disclose their donors when churches, chambers of commerce, or other groups make choices to support independent expenditure efforts, for multiple layers of groups and donors, the law violates this privacy principle inherent in the freedom of association.”
What comes next
The lawsuit will be heard by Chief Judge Sharon L. Gleason in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. As of April 18, the court had not announced a hearing date. Alaska Department of Law spokesperson Daniel Cacciatore said the department was reviewing the complaint. Scott Kendall, an attorney for Alaskans for Better Elections, filed a motion to intervene in the case on April 12 and said the group would fight “this baseless suit and defend the reforms passed in 2020.”
Reactions
Daniel Suhr of the Liberty Justice Center, said, “Our system should be built for everyday people to be able to make their voices heard in the public square to support candidates and causes that they believe in.” Doug Smith, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said, “These overly intrusive requirements will shut down speech in Alaska. We should welcome and encourage debate over important issues in Alaska, rather than impose laws and requirements that deter people from supporting causes they believe in and open them up to political intimidation.”
Jason Grenn, executive director of Alaskans for Better Elections, said, “Alaskan voters made it clear that they want increased campaign transparency and have a right to know who is spending money on their elections. Nothing in ballot measure two violates the first amendment, nor does it limit political speech.”
What we’ve been reading
- Detroit News, “Michigan judge assigned abortion law case a donor to plaintiff Planned Parenthood,” April 14, 2022
- The Roanoke Star News, “Gov. Youngkin Signs Bill Protecting Donor Privacy,” April 12, 2022
- Missouri Independent, “In Senate race full of millionaires, Missouri must wait to see finances of newest entrant,” April 15, 2022
The big picture
Number of relevant bills by state: We’re currently tracking 139 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure and privacy. Of these bills, 112 are primarily focused on disclosure, and 27 are primarily focused on privacy. To reflect this distinction, the charts in this section and the recent legislative actions below are divided between disclosure legislation and privacy legislation. On the maps below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking.
Donor disclosure legislation
Number of relevant bills by current legislative status:
Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s):
Donor privacy legislation
Number of relevant bills by current legislative status:
Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s):
Recent legislative actions
For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here.
Donor disclosure legislation
-
Colorado HB1060: This bill would set limits on contributions to candidates for school district director and require candidates to disclose campaign contribution information to the secretary of state.
- Democratic sponsorship
- This bill was enacted on April 13.
-
Connecticut HB05455: This bill would prohibit a donor from making a contribution under any name but their own.
- Unknown sponsorship
- This bill was referred to committee on April 12.
-
Connecticut SB00431: This bill would require committees to report referendum spending as an independent expenditure. It would also require committees to disclose donors for certain types of referendum spending.
- Democratic sponsorship
- This bill was referred to committee on April 14.
-
Kentucky HB740: This bill would require a candidate exempt from filing a campaign finance report to file a 30 day post-election report of receipts and disbursements. It would also require a candidate who is exempt from filing for the primary who advances to the regular election to refile for the filing exemption.
- Republican sponsorship
- This bill was enacted on April 14.
-
Maine LD1782: This bill would prohibit a ballot question committee from making contributions to a candidate or political action committee if some or all of the contribution comes from a business.
- Democratic sponsorship
- This bill was enacted on April 11.
Donor privacy legislation
-
Kentucky HB241: This bill would allow the Transportation Cabinet and the Energy and Environment Cabinet to receive, accept, and solicit contributions from a governmental agency, individual, nonprofit organization, or private business for the Adopt-a- Highway Litter Program or other statewide litter programs. These contributions would be treated as restricted funds and would not be subject to state disclosure restrictions.
- Republican sponsorship
- This bill was vetoed on April 11.
-
Virginia HB970: This bill prohibits government agencies from requesting or disclosing donor information from any 501(c) organization. The bill exempts the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act of 2006 from the privacy requirements.
- Republican sponsorship
- This bill was enacted on April 11.
