Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

Yet another threat to open elections

Post by Patrick O'Callahan on Oct. 25, 2009 at 6:03 pm with 1 Comment »
December 22, 2009 2:26 pm

This editorial will appear in tomorrow’s print edition.

That didn’t take long.

When a federal judge ruled last month that the First Amendment bars disclosure of the petitions that put Referendum 71 on the ballot, he opened the door to a potential gutting of Washington’s open records laws. The gutting is already being attempted.

Some opponents of the state’s new same-sex domestic-benefits law, which R-71’s passage would preserve, are now pressing to go far beyond keeping petition signatures secret. A lawsuit they filed in federal court Wednesday demands that many – probably most – campaign donations also be kept secret. In fact, it insists that the Bill of Rights mandates such secrecy.

The implications of this claim are shocking. If successful, it would crack the bedrock foundation of campaign disclosure laws in Washington and other states.
Both the petition and the donation-disclosure cases have the potential to hide elections in a black box.

If the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upholds petition secrecy on First Amendment grounds, every petition for every initiative and referendum – throughout the country – will have to be treated like a state secret. There will be no way for citizens to independently assess whether elections officials verified signatures properly and lawfully put measures on the ballot.

The consequences of donor-secrecy could well be worse, depending on where the judiciary might draw the line.

Family PAC, the organization suing to conceal donations against R-71, wants to overturn Washington’s policy of letting the public see the names and addresses of anyone giving more than $25 to a campaign.

The political action committee acknowledges that citizens ought to be able to scrutinize donations above some threshold. What should that threshold be? Family PAC’s attorney told the Seattle Times that was up to the state, but he offered some guidelines: “$10,000? Maybe. Certainly not $25 or $100.”

We trust that federal appeals courts will see the safety in that $25 trigger point.
Many schemes for campaign finance reform have been advanced over the decades. None compares in importance to simply letting citizens know who is paying for a candidacy or an effort to defeat or approve a ballot measure.

The secret ballot is a sacred right. But the money and machinations that create the contents of that ballot are everybody’s business.

Leave a comment Comments → 1
  1. jimkingjr says:

    A little overwrought aren’t we? By maintaining the almost one hundred year history of petition secrecy we are going to bring our free and fair eleections to an end? Come on, now.

    First- petition secrecy has been the norm, and it has not created problems over the decades.

    Two- just how do you propose that any third party be able to independently assess the verification process? No third party can get access to the original voter registration cards and signatures, so just how is it going to be done?

    And petition secrecy is different from reporting contributions. The weakness in the state’s position is the repeated refusal of the Legislature to adjust the $25 threshhold. We let ythe maximum contribution limit rise with inflation, but the $25 threshold has never been raised- not since it was created in 1972.

    Would raising it to $100 really undermine democracy? Or might it not increase the average person’s political participation.

    Why is the News Tribune so determined to support the chilling of polituical participation? You should be ashamed of yourselves.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0