Federal court loosens some state election law restrictions

DES MOINES – A federal appeals court struck down parts of the state's election law as unconstitutional Thursday, loosening some of the restrictions for groups that want to spend on behalf of – but not coordinate with – political campaigns.

But the court upheld key provisions which ban direct corporate contributions to candidates and force outside groups to disclose details about their spending.

“They kept intact the main part of our statute which is important,” said Megan Tooker, executive director of the Iowa Campaign & Ethics Disclosure Board. “Especially the part about event reporting which says campaigns have to disclose within 48 hours their expenditures.”

The ruling form the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes on a lawsuit filed by Iowa Right to Life against state campaign disclosure laws passed in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United case.

That case gave political prominence to 501(c)4 organizations, known by the tax code provision which they are authorized under, but more commonly referred to as Super PACs. These groups are able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money as long as they don't directly coordinate with campaigns.

While the three-judge panel kept the part of the law that required reporting in 48 hours if it spent more than $750 on behalf of a candidate, it struck down the requirement that groups have to send in updated reports and file a report when they cease to exist.

In the decision, Judge Duane Benton called the additional reports “redundant and more burdensome” which would likely discourage groups from getting involved in the electoral process.

James Bopp, lead counsel for Iowa Right to Life, also celebrated the ruling in a statement released by his Indiana law office.

"This is a victory for free speech," he said.  "The Eighth Circuit today reaffirmed its 2012 decision applying the major-purpose test to state law. It joins similar published decisions from the Fourth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits."

State Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Cedar Falls, who shepherded the disclosure requirements through the Legislature in 2010, said the appeals court ruling is an opportunity to “make changes where they need to be made and add to it.”

He said nothing less than 100 percent disclosure should satisfy lawmakers and their constituents.

“We're first-in-the-nation in elections, we should be first-in-the-nation in disclosure too,” he said.