Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Voter-Approved Anti-Dark Money Law
The Arizona Supreme Court has reaffirmed a significant voter-backed law aimed at increasing transparency in political donations. However, the court has also allowed a pathway for critics to challenge the law further, focusing on potential threats to free speech and donor privacy.
Known as the Voters Right to Know Act, this law was endorsed by 72% of voters in 2022. It mandates that individuals or organizations spending over $50,000 on statewide campaign media must disclose donors who contribute at least $5,000. The same requirement applies to those spending over $25,000 in other races.
Opponents, including the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, have contested the law, claiming it infringes on free speech and privacy protections. They argue that revealing donor identities could lead to harassment and a decrease in political contributions.
The Arizona Supreme Court, in a divided decision, dismissed these concerns, stating that the law does not breach free speech rights under the Arizona Constitution.
“Donors supporting campaign media spending for ordinary ballot measures, municipal candidates, bond elections, or budget issues, for example, are not inherently subject to retaliation,” Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer noted in the court’s opinion.
The court referenced Arizona’s longstanding tradition of supporting campaign finance disclosure, dating back to the framers of the state Constitution. In 1917, the state even implemented a law banning anonymous donations for ballot measure campaigns.
Chief Justice Timmer remarked, “Arizona’s early enactments, adopted in the state’s formative years, confirm that the framers and the People viewed disclosure of election-related contributions and contributor identities as essential, effective tools in preserving fair and transparent elections.”
The justices also clarified that the law does not infringe on privacy rights as donations for campaign media do not constitute “private affairs” under the state constitution.
Ongoing Legal Challenges
Despite the rejection of broad claims against the law, the court has permitted further examination of specific free speech concerns. The case will return to Maricopa County Superior Court, allowing plaintiffs to present evidence that the law could lead to threats or retaliation against donors.
“CAP and FEC ground these allegations in concrete facts,” Timmer stated, citing evidence of threatening messages received by the groups and testimonies from anonymous donors who may limit contributions due to the law.
Both sides have interpreted the ruling as a partial victory. Andrew Gould, a former Arizona Supreme Court justice representing the plaintiffs, considered the decision to continue examining retaliation claims as “a win for democracy.” Peter Gentala of the Center for Arizona Policy echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the need to protect donor anonymity.
Conversely, former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a proponent of the law, expressed confidence in its survival. He argued that there is no historical evidence linking disclosure laws to increased donor harassment.
Goddard stated, “For 114 years, we’ve had disclosure statutes in the state of Arizona ever since statehood,” pointing out the lack of incidents involving harassment from campaign contribution disclosures.
While the legal battle continues, the Voters Right to Know Act remains in effect for upcoming elections, as noted by Goddard.
—
Read More Arizona News
