Political Action Committee - Federal Level Backlash

Federal Level Backlash

Three federal rulings defending state election laws were apparent setbacks for PACs trying to keep donor names secret. On December 29, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Family PAC, an organization that describes itself as "the leading pro-family, anti-tax" PAC. The Court confirmed that PACs must conform with State of Washington election laws and were required to disclose the names and addresses for anyone contributing over $25. In the ruling, the Court stated:

The compelling State interest here is providing access to voters to information relevant to voting decision....we do not agree with Family PAC’s contention that disclosure of small contributors does not provide information that enables the electorate to evaluate campaign messages and make informed decisions.

On January 31, 2012, the US First Circuit Court of Appeals rule against the National Organization for Marriage's attempts to continue to keep their donor list secret. The group had also previously lost a challenge to the state's political action committee laws and laws governing independent expenditures and advertising attribution and disclaimers. This court decision incorporated the "reasonable person in the circumstances", which is generally deemed an objective test. If a reasonable person receiving a solicitation would construe the funds they contributed to be for the purpose of funding a campaign to pass or defeat a ballot measure, then they clearly come within the reporting and disclosure requirements. Thus, the court found that the statute is not sufficiently ambiguous to raise constitutional concerns.

On May 16, 2011, the US Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld Minnesota's disclosure laws and ban on corporate contributions.

Attorney James Bopp, Jr., who argued on the behalf of all three groups against the state, is attempting appeals in the US Supreme Court.

In a federal court case filed in Guam by Philip Maise, "Maise says super PACs have allowed for millions of dollars in campaign donations to fund an offensive against same-sex marriage legislation".