The Institute for Justice is in court today, representing six neighbors in Parker North, Colo. in their challenge of Colorado’s restrictive campaign finance laws. The case is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. IJ Senior Attorney Steve Simpson is arguing the case.
The neighbors, who opposed annexation of their homes into a nearby town, were sued by a political opponent for violating Colorado’s campaign finance law sby not registering as an “issue committee.” The group was forced to register, and, to continue speaking, they had to file reports with the government detailing their activities and contributions to their efforts.
IJ’s release has more:
“Mandatory disclosure invites intimidation and harassment based on people’s political views and simply makes it harder for ordinary citizens to get involved in politics,” Simpson said. “Under the First Amendment, you shouldn’t need a lawyer and an accountant to speak out about politics.”
Engage, a publication of the Federalist Society, recently featured an article by Jeffrey Milyo, Dick Carpenter and John Ross. The piece, “Politics for Professionals Only: Ballot Measures, Campaign Finance ‘Reform,’ and the First Amendment,” chronicles how campaign finance laws chill the speech of citizen-activists advocating for ballot initiatives:
Campaign finance regulation was originally meant to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in politics — specifically, the trading of political favors for campaign contributions. But in the context of ballot measures, where the people are voting on proposed laws directly, there is no one to corrupt. Nonetheless, the kinds of campaign finance regulations intended for politicians have seeped into the realm of ballot issues.
The authors explain how the six Parker North, Colo. neighbors became ensnared in campaign finance regulations after a political opponent sicced the government regulators:
Under Colorado law, when two or more people join together and spend more than $200 on political activities related to a ballot issue, they must register as an “issue committee.” Furthermore, any Colorado citizen may bring a private suit to enforce campaign fi nance laws. While intended as a way to enhance enforcement of campaign fi nance laws, this merely grants one side of a political issue a method to use government authority to bully political opponents.
Unaware of these laws and unconvinced that their informal and ad hoc activism warranted state attention, the opponents of annexation had failed to comply with the laws’ numerous Byzantine mandates. Among them: designate formal officers-they had been meeting on porches and in kitchens and pitching in where they could-open a separate bank account, itemize all monetary and non-monetary transactions of more than $20, and provide the names and employers of supporters to the state for publication on a web site maintained by the Colorado Secretary of State.