9th Circuit upholds Wash. campaign-disclosure laws
OLYMPIA, Wash. — A federal appeals court upheld Washington state’s campaign-disclosure laws yesterday, saying the requirements don’t violate the First Amendment rights of a group that didn’t want to reveal its donors in a 2008 opposition campaign to an assisted-suicide ballot measure.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that rejected Human Life of Washington’s contention that the state’s disclosure requirements for political committees, independent expenditures and political advertising were unconstitutional.
The judges wrote that disclosure requirements “have become an important part of our First Amendment tradition.”
“There is a substantial relationship between Washington State’s interest in informing the electorate and the definitions and disclosure requirements it employs to advance that interest,” the ruling said.
Phone and e-mail messages left with Human Life and with James Bopp Jr., a noted campaign-finance attorney who represented the group, were not returned in time for this story.
Human Life had argued that it shouldn’t have to register with the state as a political action committee, because it wanted to sponsor ads about the issue of assisted suicide, not ads explicitly about Initiative 1000, the “Death with Dignity” initiative that was on the November 2008 ballot. I-1000 was passed by nearly 60% of voters and took effect in March 2009. It allows terminally ill people to obtain lethal prescription drugs for ending their own lives.
The appellate court said that Human Life’s challenge to the law wasn’t moot even though the law had already passed because the politically active group would likely face this issue again in future election communications.
Six initiatives and one referendum are on the ballot in Washington state this year, and state records show the campaigns have raised a combined $54 million, with about $16 million spent so far.
“Access to reliable information becomes even more important as more speakers, more speech and thus more spending enter the marketplace, which is precisely what has occurred in recent years,” the three-judge panel wrote. “Like campaigns for elected office, ballot initiatives are the subject of intense debate and, accordingly, greater expenditures to ensure that messages reach voters.”
Doug Ellis, interim executive director of the state Public Disclosure Commission agreed, saying: “The people’s right to know who is financing election campaigns is of the highest importance.”
The ruling came the same day the U.S. Supreme Court turned down a request to lift Washington state limits on campaign contributions in the final weeks of ballot-measure campaigns.
The Court said yesterday that it would leave in place a decision from the 9th Circuit that keeps a $5,000 limit in effect in the final three weeks of an initiative or referendum campaign. The action comes despite a federal judge’s ruling that capping contributions is unconstitutional.
The state is appealing the ruling in a lawsuit brought by Family PAC, a political group involved in Washington’s 2009 referendum on expanded domestic partnerships for gay couples.
Voters enacted the state’s public-records law with the overwhelming passage of Initiative 276 in 1972. The measure called for disclosure of campaign finances, lobbyist activity, financial affairs of elective officers and candidates, and access to public records.
Tags: ballot initiative, campaign finance, financial disclosure, political speech, Washington
The First Amendment Center is an educational organization and cannot provide legal advice.
Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University and in Washington, D.C. Previously, Paulson served as the editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today.
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center and president and chief operating officer of the Diversity Institute, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life.
David L. Hudson Jr. is an expert in First Amendment issues who writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications. Hudson teaches law and was a scholar at the First Amendment Center.
Tiffany Villager is director/First Amendment studies at the First Amendment Center, which she joined in 1993. She also served as the center’s research manager and research coordinator, and developed the center’s library.
