7th Circuit Upholds Illinois Campaign Disclosure Laws
On Monday, the 7th Circuit ruled in favor of Illinois’ campaign finance disclosure law in Center For Individual Freedom v. Madigan. The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF), a Virginia-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit, hoped to run advertisements in Illinois markets during the 2010 election season. The ads were intended to address “legal reform and other justice-related issues” and were expected to refer to incumbent candidates, note the “positions of candidates or . . . ballot issues and call on the audience to take actions such as contacting candidates.” (quote is from the Sec. I, the Factual and Procedural Background portion of the opinion). CFIF challenged Article 9 of the Illinois Election Code, saying its First Amendment right to speech was impermissibly chilled by the disclosure provisions because “its donors require assurances that their identities will not be disclosed, and this anonymity is a condition of their support.” (quote is from the Factual and Procedural Background portion of the opinion)
As summarized in the opinion, Article 9 requires:
each political committee in Illinois [to]register with the Board of Elections, maintain records of every contribution received and expenditure made “in connection with” an election, 10 ILCS 5/9–7, and file a report of all such transactions each quarter, 10 ILCS 5/9–10(b). This quarterly report must include the total sums of contributions received and expenditures made in the covered period; accountings of the committee’s funds on-hand and investment assets held; and the name and address of each contributor who gave more than $150 that quarter. 10 ILCS 5/9–11(a). In addition to the quarterly report, a political committee must disclose any contribution of $1,000 or more (along with the name and address of the contributor) within five days of its receipt, or within two days if received 30 or fewer days before an election. 10 ILCS 5/9–10(c). For reporting violations, the Board may issue civil fines of no more than $5,000 for any one group (except in the case of “willful and wanton” violations), or seek to enjoin violators’ campaign activities in state court. 10 ILCS 5/9–10.3
The 7th Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that these provisions are not unconstitionally vague nor overbroad.
Disclosure laws are generally considered a “less-restrictive” regulation of speech and important election law cases, such as Buckley v. Valeo, McConnell v. FEC, and Citizens United v. FEC tend to be tolerant of disclosure laws. In fact, disclosure laws are viewed as a “critical tool for maintaining transparency in the political marketplace.” (quote is from Sec. IV, the portion of the opinion analyzing whether the disclosure law is overbroad and void-for-vagueness).
Not only is the voting public served by disclosure laws, but legislators themselves need to be able to properly evaluate the pressures placed upon them, which they cannot do if political ads do not disclose their backers. In its ruling, the 7th Circuit acknowledged this by citing U.S. v Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 625 (1954), a decision approving disclosure laws in a direct lobbying context.
The decision notes much vital information is lost when disclosure laws are not applied to political speech, recognizing that the credibility and persuasiveness of the speaker are tied to the identity of the speaker and that listeners cannot properly evaluate a message whose speaker is cloaked in secrecy. The 7th Circuit, again referring to Citizens United, found the burdens of Illinois’ disclosure laws to be modest and found that Illinois has a substantial interest in providing this type of information to its citizens.
The Chicago Law Bulletin (not available online) reports that attorney general’s office is “pleased that the 7th Circuit upheld the disclosure provisions.”
At Chicago Appleseed, we are also pleased with the ruling. We believe that strong disclosure rules protect the public and have advocated for robust disclosure, particularly in the context of judicial elections. The integrity of our electoral process begins with the integrity of the information voters use in making their decisions about which votes to cast. The most basic information necessary for assessing the value of information is the source of that information.