Arizona’s campaign disclosure law upheld in federal court ruling
Arizona’s law requiring disclosure of campaign spending has notched another court victory.
U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver on Wednesday dismissed a complaint filed by Americans for Prosperity and its foundation. The groups argued the law’s requirement for public disclosure of spending on candidate and ballot campaigns violated their First Amendment free speech rights.
But the judge said the plaintiffs’ complaint was “unfocused” and didn’t identify which portions of the law they disputed. That left the defendants — in this case, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office — in the dark about what exactly to defend, Silver wrote.
She pointed to rulings from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in two similar cases and said they set a standard for the scrutiny the Americans for Prosperity case must survive.
Her conclusion: There is a strong government interest in letting the public know who is paying for campaign messages. Because of that interest, certain “burdens” are reasonable, such as setting a time frame for reporting and setting a spending threshold for when disclosure is necessary, she wrote.
However, Silver gave the plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint if they can provide information that their donors would face “threats, harassment or reprisals” if their names were disclosed.
The Campaign Legal Center, which defended the law, called the ruling “a ringing affirmation of the Act’s constitutionality and Arizona citizens’ right to know who is spending to influence their votes.”
Attorneys for Americans for Prosperity did not immediately return a call for comment.
The Voters Right to Know Act, approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2022, requires any statewide campaign that spends $50,000 or more in advocacy to disclose the names of any individual who gave $5,000 or more to the campaign. Those thresholds are halved for local races and issues.
The goal was to pull back the curtain that kept certain campaign spending in the dark, thus the law’s nickname: the anti-dark money initiative.
The law is on the books and is effective for this year’s campaigns. Any spending done within 90 days of an election that meets the spending thresholds in the law triggers a reporting requirement identifying the actual individuals who provide the funding. Previously those individuals were untraceable.
Terry Goddard was the chairman of the group that brought Proposition 211 to the ballot.
“Our legal team is ecstatic,” Goddard said of the ruling. “They say this is the best one yet.”
The law has withstood two other legal challenges, although appeals are still a possibility.
The Campaign Legal Center, based in Washington, D.C., hailed the ruling for following U.S. Supreme Court precedent and rulings from the Ninth Circuit.
“This decision marks another major win for Arizonans, protecting their First Amendment right to be well-informed voters, reducing political corruption, and enhancing informed participation in our democracy,” the center’s attorneys said in a statement.
The law has withstood two other legal challenges, although appeals are still a possibility.