This being Sunshine Week, which advocates for the public's right to know, it was disheartening to learn of a ruling Monday against two campaign finance disclosure laws in Wisconsin.
U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller ruled that two state laws requiring disclosures by groups advocating for or against a local referendum go too far in restricting free speech. One law requires anyone spending more than $25 to influence a referendum to register with the Government Accountability Board, create a campaign bank account and disclose names of donors. The other law requires disclaimers saying which group paid for campaign materials.
The laws were challenged by Town of Whitewater resident John Swaffer Jr., who led a $500 campaign against a referendum that would have allowed liquor sales in the dry town last year. Swaffer said the laws place an unconstitutional burden on citizens who want their opinions to be heard.
Judge Stadtmueller agreed, writing "these requirements act to inhibit the open exchange of ideas and political conversations on referendum issues, at least with respect to individual Wisconsinites ... who seek to inject their opinions into the public debate."
Frankly, the judge is wrong.
There are two local cases, one for each law, that come immediately to mind.
The first related to a mailer sent to New Glarus school district residents in 2007 supporting a property tax referendum. The mailers did not identify the sender, in violation of state law. Ultimately, the officers of the volunteer-group Citizens Action Committee were fined $100.
When anyone - whether it be volunteer citizens, a local government, a special interest group or a business - advocates for a particular election result, it's important for the voter to know the source. In this case, adding one line to the mailer about the identity of the group would not have been burdensome.
In the second case, Walmart was required in 2006 to pay $753 for its failure to register with elections officials when it advocated for passage of a non-binding referendum in 2005 about allowing a supercenter to be built in Monroe.
As Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard said at the time, "the rule that Walmart admits violating is simple and important. The public is entitled to learn the identity of any group spending money to influence votes in a public referendum." Blanchard added that he didn't believe Walmart's violation was intentional.
He was right, of course, that knowing the identity of an individual or group trying to influence an election is important. Full public disclosure should take precedence over any burden or inconvenience the responsibility of filing brings with it.
Unfortunately, the judge in the Whitewater case didn't see it that way, and chose convenience over public knowledge.
U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller ruled that two state laws requiring disclosures by groups advocating for or against a local referendum go too far in restricting free speech. One law requires anyone spending more than $25 to influence a referendum to register with the Government Accountability Board, create a campaign bank account and disclose names of donors. The other law requires disclaimers saying which group paid for campaign materials.
The laws were challenged by Town of Whitewater resident John Swaffer Jr., who led a $500 campaign against a referendum that would have allowed liquor sales in the dry town last year. Swaffer said the laws place an unconstitutional burden on citizens who want their opinions to be heard.
Judge Stadtmueller agreed, writing "these requirements act to inhibit the open exchange of ideas and political conversations on referendum issues, at least with respect to individual Wisconsinites ... who seek to inject their opinions into the public debate."
Frankly, the judge is wrong.
There are two local cases, one for each law, that come immediately to mind.
The first related to a mailer sent to New Glarus school district residents in 2007 supporting a property tax referendum. The mailers did not identify the sender, in violation of state law. Ultimately, the officers of the volunteer-group Citizens Action Committee were fined $100.
When anyone - whether it be volunteer citizens, a local government, a special interest group or a business - advocates for a particular election result, it's important for the voter to know the source. In this case, adding one line to the mailer about the identity of the group would not have been burdensome.
In the second case, Walmart was required in 2006 to pay $753 for its failure to register with elections officials when it advocated for passage of a non-binding referendum in 2005 about allowing a supercenter to be built in Monroe.
As Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard said at the time, "the rule that Walmart admits violating is simple and important. The public is entitled to learn the identity of any group spending money to influence votes in a public referendum." Blanchard added that he didn't believe Walmart's violation was intentional.
He was right, of course, that knowing the identity of an individual or group trying to influence an election is important. Full public disclosure should take precedence over any burden or inconvenience the responsibility of filing brings with it.
Unfortunately, the judge in the Whitewater case didn't see it that way, and chose convenience over public knowledge.
