Judge was correct in campaign finance case

By The Des Moines Register

-----

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that corporations may spend money to influence elections, it made clear that the states and the federal government are still free to require public reporting of those expenditures. In response, Iowa beefed up its law requiring corporations, unions and other independent groups to publicly report campaign spending.

The Iowa Right to Life Committee sued, claiming the Iowa law is an unconstitutional burden on the group's freedom of speech, but a federal judge in Des Moines dismissed the case recently. Iowa Right to Life could appeal, and one question in the case must yet be resolved by the Iowa Supreme Court, but it is unlikely the decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt will be reversed. Which is good, because the state should have the ability to assure that Iowans know where money is coming from in political campaigns.

The Iowa Right to Life Committee sought to have the court halt enforcement of the new Iowa law last fall while this case was tried, as it wanted to spend money in support of Brenna Findley in her race against Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. The court rejected the injunction request. It's not clear exactly what the group hoped to achieve with this lawsuit. A spokesman for the group testified that it is not against public disclosure of its spending, but the group argued that Iowa's rules are unnecessarily “burdensome.”

The Iowa Right to Life Committee launched several attacks on Iowa's disclosure law, including the requirement that it document that campaign spending is approved by its corporate board. And, it interpreted the law to mean it must file reports with the state as if it were political action committee, which entails more paperwork than a group that simply makes an independent expenditure in support of a political campaign.

The head of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board testified that groups like Iowa Right to Life would not be treated as PACs when making independent expenditures. But the Iowa Right to Life said the law is nonetheless unclear and that has a “chilling effect” on its campaign spending, which violates the First Amendment.

Even if the Iowa Right to Life Committee appeals the trial court ruling, it would be tough sledding. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which has jurisdiction in several Midwestern states including Iowa, recently upheld Minnesota's spending disclosure requirements in a similar case.

Ultimately the courts should uphold efforts by the states, and Congress, to enforce strict reporting of campaign spending by independent organizations, whether they be anti-abortion groups, the NRA or Fortune 500 corporations. The U.S. Supreme Court was right to rule that such independent groups have a right under the First Amendment to express their views in political campaigns - so long as the public knows who is paying the bills.

At the federal level, however, corporations and other independent groups have found ways to channel money into political campaign advertising without having to identify the source. That is wrong, and Congress should fix it.