The group that convinced voters last year to expose “dark money” contributions to political campaigns wants a federal judge to throw out a bid by a conservative advocacy group to kill the new law. Attorneys for Voters’ Right to Know said there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about ensuring that voters know the real source of funds being spent to influence their decisions on candidates and ballot measures. || Deposit Photos
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
The group that convinced voters last year to expose “dark money” contributions to political campaigns wants a federal judge to toss a bid by a conservative advocacy group to kill the new law.
In court filings Friday, attorneys for Voters’ Right to Know said there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about ensuring that voters know the true source of funds being spent to influence their decisions on candidates and ballot measures.
“The act, like other disclosure laws, does not limit campaign expenditures or contributions,” wrote attorney David Kolker of the Campaign Legal Center Action. Nor, he told U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver, does it undermine the First Amendment rights of free speech, even though that has been interpreted to include spending money.
“The right to free speech was designed to enable self-government, ensure responsive officeholders, and prevent the corruption of the democratic process,” he said. “Properly understood, disclosure laws like the Voters’ Right to Know Act enhance, rather than constrain, the free speech necessary to sustain our democracy.”
And Kolker said there is research confirming that “knowing the sources of election messaging is a particularly credible informational cue for voters seeking to make decisions consistent with their policy preferences.”
Put another way, being aware of who is really financing commercials, advertising and billboards urging people to vote a certain way can help voters decide if the message is credible.
Hanging in the balance is Proposition 211.
Approved in November by a nearly 3-1 margin, it is designed to outlaw what has been a process where donors can hide their financial involvement in public policy issues by running their campaigns through other organizations with more innocent-sounding names.
Kolker points Silver to 2014 when Pinnacle West Capital Corp., the parent company of Arizona Public Service, quietly funneled $10.7 million into successful campaigns to secure the election of Tom Forese and Doug Little to the Arizona Corporation Commission.
But the legally required campaign finance reports instead showed only that donations were made by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the Arizona Cattle Feeders Association, and Save Our Future Now.
More:
