[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The election campaign defenders won on Tuesday, the Supreme Court refused to block the trial judge's decision that certain non-profit groups that publish political ads disclose the names of their associates.
The brief order of the Supreme Court gave no reason and noted no dissenting vote. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s Saturday order that temporarily blocked the decision was overturned.
This decision, made last month by Washington District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell, required that many non-profit groups presenting ads supporting or opposing political candidates reveal the identity of donors who paid more $ 200. Prior to the decision, these groups could generally protect their donors from public scrutiny.
The case was introduced by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, a monitoring group. She sued the Federal Election Commission and Crossroads GPS, a conservative group. Howell J. overturned a federal regulation that effectively allowed for secret contributions, claiming that it was contrary to federal law.
A federal appeals court will hear an appeal from Justice Howell's decision, but no decision is expected before the November election. This means that many groups who place campaign ads will have to divulge their donors in the meantime.
"It's a great day for transparency and democracy," said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of the monitoring group. "Three courts, including the Supreme Court, have now rejected Carrefour's arguments for a stay, which means we're about to know a lot more about who's funding our elections."
The decision applies to groups such as social welfare organizations and commercial organizations that do not register as political committees with the electoral commission. The commission had required disclosure of donors only when they contributed to specific advertisements.
This allowed them to escape the disclosure requirements of the law, wrote Judge Howell. "A donor who pays more than $ 200 a year to a non-political committee for the express purpose of pleading for or against the election of a candidate for a federal office would not be identified," he said. she writes. that the funds be used for the specific expenses reported to the ECF, even though the donor may otherwise support and, in fact, help finance these expenditures. "
In their urgent request for the Supreme Court to intervene, Crossroads GPS's lawyers urged the courts to leave the regulation in abeyance, stating that "there were no compelling reasons to throw clear standards into an election. national – thus deterring the speech and the basic association of the First Amendment.
In response, CREW's lawyers cited passages from a Supreme Court decision that favored the disclosure of contributions. "The public's interest in disclosure," writes the group, "includes knowing where the political campaign funds come from and how they are spent" in order to know about "sources of financial support from other sources". "candidate" and appearance of corruption by exposing significant contributions and expenses in the light of advertising. "
Source link
