By Nate Raymond
Sept 10 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Monday upheld
an Illinois state law that requires advocacy groups to disclose
their donors, even in the case of an organization whose main
purpose is unrelated to elections.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Chicago rejected claims by the Center for Individual Freedom
that the state's law restricted the group's freedom of speech.
The ruling added to a mixed bag of decisions by other
appeals courts, which have both upheld and rejected state laws
on campaign disclosure based on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010
decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The Center for Individual Freedom, a right-leaning advocacy
group based in Alexandria, Virginia, said it was planning to run
advertisements in 2010 addressing "judicial matters" and "legal
reform" issues regarding incumbents running for re-election.
But the center contended that Illinois campaign finance laws
would require it to register as a political committee and
disclose its donors, who wanted to remain anonymous.
Illinois disclosure law mirrors federal regulations, with
some exceptions. It covers ballot initiatives, which only exist
at the state level. Furthermore, unlike the federal regulations,
Illinois does not exempt groups whose "major purpose" is
something other than influencing elections. It also covers
campaign-related Internet advertising.
As a result of the law's donor disclosure requirements, the
center said it skipped any advertising in Illinois in 2010. It
sued the state, saying the Illinois law violated the First and
14th Amendments' rights for free speech and equal protection.
U.S. District Judge William Hart in Chicago dismissed the
lawsuit in November 2011.
The 7th Circuit on Monday affirmed Hart's decision.
Judge David Hamilton wrote that the Illinois campaign
finance disclosure law strikes a balance between protecting
individual speakers from invasions of privacy and harassment on
the one hand and enabling transparency and accountability in
political campaigns on the other.
Hamilton, writing for himself and Judge Ilana Rovner, said
comprehensive disclosure was "especially valuable after Citizens
United," noting that outside spending in the 2012 federal
elections had already hit $300 million.
The Citizens United decision removed limits on corporate and
union spending in elections, on free speech grounds.
"Amidst this cacophony of political voices -- super PACs,
corporations, unions, advocacy groups, and individuals, not to
mention the parties and candidates themselves -- campaign
finance data can help busy voters sift through the information
and make informed political judgments," Hamilton wrote.
Judge Richard Posner wrote a separate opinion in which he
concurred in part but said "several provisions of the Illinois
statute seem to me to burden the plaintiff's freedom of speech
unduly" and should be invalidated.
Monday's ruling was the latest in an array of decisions by
federal appeals courts both rejecting and upholding challenges
to state disclosure laws in the wake of the Citizens United
decision.
"It's pretty clear this is headed to the Supreme Court,"
said Frederick Lowell, an election law attorney at Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman.
In addition to the 7th Circuit, five appeals courts have
rejected lawsuits challenging disclosure, according to a
footnote in Monday's ruling.
The 10th Circuit in Denver has, by contrast, in 2010 twice
nixed disclosure laws, in New Mexico and Colorado, the footnote
said. Monday's decision by the 7th Circuit did not mention a
ruling last week by the 8th Circuit that temporarily blocked
Minnesota's law.
Timothy Lee, vice president of legal and public affairs for
the Center for Individual Freedom, declined to comment on
Monday's decision.
Natalie Bauer, a spokeswoman for Illinois Attorney General
Lisa Madigan, said, "We're pleased that the court upheld these
critical campaign finance disclosure provisions."
The case is Center for Individual Freedom v. Madigan, U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, No. 11-3693.
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook