Judge upholds state law aimed at election transparency

Colleen Heild, Albuquerque Journal, N.M.
·2 min read

Mar. 31—A federal judge on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a 2019 state law aimed at better informing voters about who is spending money to influence an election.

Two nonprofit advocacy groups, including the New Mexico-based Rio Grande Foundation, argued the law, which requires more disclosure of dark-money political spending, violated their donors' First Amendment rights to anonymous free speech and freedom of association.

The libertarian-leaning foundation and the Illinois Opportunity Project of Chicago filed a lawsuit in December 2019 challenging the law, contending it would have a chilling effect on potential donors.

But Senior U.S. District Judge Judith C. Herrera ruled that the New Mexico Secretary of State, in defending the law, showed that New Mexico "has an important interest in informing voters about who is making large contributions to pay for advertisements about candidates and ballot measures shortly before elections."

The 2019 law applies to nonprofit organizations that don't normally have to disclose their donors like candidates and political action committees do.

Such groups must report their spending and the contributors involved when they spend above a certain threshold near an election. They also must put a sponsorship label on their materials.

The Rio Grande Foundation's lawsuit argued that the disclosure requirements "impose a substantial burden on its First Amendment rights because the loss of donor support is real,'" Herrera's ruling stated. The Foundation had said that it fears if its donors are disclosed, they may be subject to retaliation and harassment by intolerant members of society.

The foundation said it knew of several donors that would not continue to support the organization if they were subject to disclosure. But Herrera, in her ruling, noted that the foundation "admits ... that it is not aware of any harassment or retaliation of its employees or donors in its over 20-year history."

The judge said there was "too little evidence" that the law would have a chilling effect.

Proponents of the law have argued that it is an important transparency step that would make more information available to voters.

A spokesman for the Secretary of State's office wasn't immediately available Friday afternoon. The Rio Grande Foundation's president, Paul Gessing, also could not be reached for comment.