Supreme Court Should Decide Grassroots Disclosure Requirements

Posted on April 12, 2007

PRESS RELEASE: April 12, 2007

Media Contact: Mike Schrimpf (703) 682-9359

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

"Supreme Court Should Decide Grassroots Disclosure Requirements"

ARLINGTON, VA - Today the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) requested the Supreme Court hear a case that could be pivotal in the battle over campaign finance regulation.

CCP, with the Reason Foundation, filed an amicus brief requesting that the Supreme Court hear the case of Todd Rongstad and The Valkyrie Group, LLC v. Julie M. Lassa (No. 06-1084).

The case would allow the Supreme Court to rule on disclosure requirements for grassroots organizations. The issue has divided Federal circuit courts and State high courts for nearly twenty years.

In order to force disclosure of contribution amounts and member names, some courts have ruled that the party seeking disclosure must demonstrate a compelling interest that will be served by disclosure. Other courts have ruled that the party asserting First Amendment privilege must establish a probability of harm for the organization or its members in order to refrain from disclosure.

"There is a strong incentive for the Supreme Court to hear this case because the issue is fundamental to protecting First Amendment rights of speech and association," CCP director Stephen Hoersting said. "By taking this case the Court can provide a uniform approach that protects the citizenry."

In the case, Julie Lassa, a Wisconsin state senator, sued Todd Rongstad for defamation after an organization Rongstad headed sent a mailer criticizing Lassa. The circuit court compelled Rongstad to provide the names of his organization's donors prior to the court addressing Lassa's need for the names or her likelihood of success. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the circuit court.

"Forced disclosure of anonymous contributors imposes a burden on First Amendment rights by allowing politicians to expose their critics," said CCP litigation consultant Erik Jaffe. "Further, the Wisconsin courts' action threatens one of the most longstanding and time honored avenues of political criticism - political pamphleteering."

The Supreme Court infrequently has the opportunity to address the First Amendment concerns presented by this case.

"In this case, petitioner took the unusual step of absorbing a contempt order and other penalties in order to stand on principal, even after the underlying defamation suit went away," Jaffe said. "This is thus one of those infrequent opportunities to address an important and often arising issue that does not routinely make it this far. This Court thus should take this opportunity to resolve a deep and longstanding split."

The Center for Competitive Politics is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. CCP's mission, through legal briefs, studies, historical and constitutional analyses, and media communication, is to educate the public on the actual effects of money in politics, and the results of a more free and competitive electoral process.

###

Related Links

Rongstad v. Lassa