Court to Determine if Connerly Violated Campaign Donation Law
Feature Story by Ritu Kelotra - 9/16/2003
Proposition 54 backer Ward Connerly might be forced to disclose controversial funding information, if a California court decides later this month to issue an injunction.The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) filed the complaint and motion for preliminary injunction against the American Civil Rights Coalition (ACRC), and Connerly, its chair, after the ACRC failed to report sources of almost $2 million in campaign contributions to its Proposition 54 Committee. Proposition 54, the so-called Racial Privacy Initiative, aims to ban California from collecting racial data in all but a few exempted areas.
The FPPC filed its suit after several civil rights groups – including California Common Cause, Californians for Justice, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law – sent a letter of complaint to the enforcement division of the California FPPC. The letter alleged that ACRC violated the Political Reform Act of 1974, which requires that political action committees disclose the source of all contributions over $5,000.
The pro-Proposition 54 committee disclosed this summer that almost 88% of its donations had come from funds funneled through ACRC, but ACRC’s Chair Connerly refused to reveal the names of donors who initially contributed to those funds. Although the ACRC is a 501(c)4 foundation that is allowed to contribute to political causes without revealing the names of donors, critics insist that this loophole does not exempt the Proposition 54 committee from disclosure regulations.
A statement released by ACRC says that they believe FPPC’s motivation for the suit is "clearly political." However, the organization did not say in the statement why the Political Reform Act should not be applied in this particular case.
“It is our belief…that the Political Reform Act is vague and ambiguous… and that requiring disclosure of ACRC donors' identities would subject those donors to harassment and economic reprisal by those who oppose the activities of ACRC,” ACRC said in a statement. “These are the reasons that ACRC refuses to comply with what we consider to be an unconstitutional law that would only serve to deprive our donors of their due process and First Amendment association and privacy rights.”
FPPC, on the other hand, supports the Political Reform Act, and sees violations of it as a disservice to voters.
“Timely disclosure is the backbone of the Political Reform Act,” FPPC Commission Chair Liane Randolph said in a statement. “Voters have a basic right to know who is funding political campaigns. They are entitled to this information in order to make well-informed decisions at the polls.”
The hearing on the motion for injunction is scheduled for September 26.
