Arizonans have an absolute right to know who is trying to influence elections, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Friday.
In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel rejected a series of claims by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and the Center for Arizona Policy that a 2022 voter-approved law, Proposition 211, interferes with their rights of privacy in the Arizona Constitution and the rights of their contributors.
Approved by voters by a nearly 3-1 margin, the Voters Right to Know Act says any organization that spends more than $50,000 on a statewide race, or half that for other contests, has to publicly disclose anyone who has given at least $5,000.
It says those recipient groups have to trace the money back to the original source.
The court said Proposition 211 serves an “important government interest’’ because it can help prevent corruption by ensuring voters know exactly who is trying to sway elections for those who support their positions rather than allowing them to hide their identities by funneling their cash through other organizations.
“In doing so, donors may exchange their indirect monetary support for political favors once the candidate is elected,’’ wrote appellate Judge Jennifer Campbell for the panel. “At that point, the same corruption concerns exists as if the donors had contributed to the candidate directly,’’ donations that state law has long required to be disclosed.
The same is true, she said, of money spent to advocate for or against ballot measures.
“If out-of-state donors pour donations into nonprofit organizations seeking to influence Arizona elections, voters have an informational interest in the disclosure of the identities of the advocacy group’s donors,’’ said Campbell.
“Donors to organizations that receive money from private individuals to use in making public declarations on government policy positions can hardly be engaging in private affairs,’’ she wrote.
This isn’t the end of the line. Joe Seyton, a spokesman for the Goldwater Institute, which is representing both organizations that have been involved in public policy and political campaigns in the past, said it will seek review by the Arizona Supreme Court.
Arizona law has long had campaign finance laws.
Until the measure was approved, however, all that was required is the name of the group that provided the cash. That meant a donation to a candidate or ballot measure or an expenditure for or against a ballot measure could be listed as coming from some group with a name like “Arizonans for Arizona,’’ with no clue who formed that group and, more to the point, no clue as to who actually was providing the money.
This measure requires that the names of those who have financed that organization must be made public.
The challenging groups argued all that interferes with the rights of donors.
“The act violates Arizonans’ right to speak freely by chilling donors from supporting causes they believe in and wish to support, lest their charitable giving become public knowledge,’’ argued attorney Scott Freeman of the Goldwater Institute.
Campbell, in the 25-page ruling, detailed a series of reasons why those arguments fail.
Framers of the Arizona Constitution made it clear they believe financial disclosure is important, directing lawmakers to require a public list of all campaign contributions to candidates for public office, she said. Proposition 211, she said, simply expands on that requirement.
She also rejected arguments that such disclosure runs afoul of free speech protections. “The laws at issue implicate only disclosure requirements, which, again, do not prevent anyone from speaking or impose ceilings on campaign related activities,’’ the judge said.
Nor was Campbell swayed by arguments that requiring such disclosure interferes with a separate constitutional right of people to associate with each other.
A judge's gavel rests on a book of law.
