Campaign finance, election laws upheld
Tea party group had called several of the laws unconstitutional.
Denying a challenge by a tea party group, the Texas Supreme Court on Friday upheld several decades-old campaign finance and election laws, including state limits on political contributions from corporations.
The state’s highest civil court also affirmed donor-disclosure rules, denying arguments that they were based on vague definitions, and upheld the right of private organizations to file suit over alleged violations of election law.
The case began in 2010 when the Texas Democratic Party filed a lawsuit accusing King Street Patriots, a Houston tea party-affiliated organization, of failing to register as a political committee and failing to disclose its donors as required by state law.
The Democrats also accused King Street Patriots of making illegal contributions to the Republican Party and GOP candidates by training and providing poll watchers to the party to monitor the 2010 general election in Harris County.
King Street Patriots countersued, arguing that donor-disclosure rules and several state election laws were unconstitutional because they placed onerous burdens on small organizations by requiring them to register with the state, keep records and file extensive, ongoing reports — leav-
ing many to avoid participating in politics altogether.
Both sides agreed to have the courts decide if the laws were enforceable before determining if the organization violated any of them.
Democrats argued that Texas lawmakers decided long ago to allow almost unlimited spending on political campaigns and issues as long as committees disclosed the sources of the money — critical information if voters are to make informed choices.
Chad Dunn, a lawyer for the state Democratic Party, called Friday’s ruling “an important victory for the democratic process.”
“Voters and politicians from all political persuasions benefit from transparency of the source of funds that are given to campaigns,” Dunn said.
In a nugget of good news for the tea party group, however, the Supreme Court declined to consider the group’s own argument that the state definition of “political committee” is unconstitutional — but only because King Street Patriots didn’t appear to meet the definition.
“King Street Patriots is not a political committee on the record before us,” Justice Eva Guzman wrote for the unanimous court. “Absent other evidence, that conclusion would be fatal to the Texas Democratic Party’s claims. Thus, making a determination (now) is premature.”
The Supreme Court returned the case to Travis County District Court to determine whether the tea party group was a political committee and whether it violated state election laws.
The lawyer for King Street Patriots, James Bopp Jr., couldn’t be reached for comment.
The Indiana lawyer, known for challenging campaign finance regulations nationwide, had earlier indicated that he might seek U.S. Supreme Court review if rebuffed by the Texas court.
In Friday’s ruling, the Texas court upheld a state law that generally bans corporations and unions from making political donations directly to candidates, noting a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling found that the First Amendment doesn’t prohibit such bans.
Writing a concurring opinion, Justice John Devine agreed that his court “unfortunately” was required to follow the high court’s precedent.
The ban on corporate giving, however, violates the First Amendment by improperly restricting political speech, Devine said.
“The time has come, therefore, for blanket bans on corporate contributions to end,” he wrote.