Campaign Disclosure Laws
"Information on who is spending unlimited funds to influence state-level campaigns is virtually a secret in the vast majority of states."
—"Indecent Disclosure," 2007 report by the National Institute on Money in State Politics
Special interest money poses a unique threat to courts, which have a constitutional obligation to be fair and impartial. Where competitive judicial elections are held, a key reform is the timely public disclosure of all campaign spending.
Disclosure laws for "third-party" ad campaigns are especially crucial. So-called "independent" campaigns have poured millions into judicial campaigns, often outspending the official candidates.
Caperton v. Massey illustrates the value of disclosure laws. Coal executive Don Blankenship spent $3 million to elect a West Virginia justice in 2004, while a lawsuit involving the executive’s company was pending. Under a disclosure law in effect at the time, Blankenship had to register his third-party campaign with the state.
Blankenship's "extreme" political spending might have gone undetected without a strong disclosure law. And a historic Supreme Court ruling protecting fair and impartial courts might never have occurred.
When the Supreme Court decided Citizens United in 2010, the justices ruled 8-1 that all groups that spend to influence elections can be forced to disclose their financial sources. In a new era of runaway election spending, the ruling gave clear guidance to state and federal lawmakers that they can pass disclosure laws.
