You are hereMinneapolis Star Tribune: On amendment issues, reveal corporate donors?

Minneapolis Star Tribune: On amendment issues, reveal corporate donors?


The state's upcoming ballot question on definition of marriage prompts finance board to reconsider keeping donor names secret.

-By Eric Roper

June 14, 2011- As activists prepare for what is expected to be one of the costliest amendment campaigns in recent history, state campaign finance officials are rethinking guidelines on how donations are disclosed.

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board met Tuesday to hear arguments on whether it should revoke a 14-year-old opinion that allows corporations to make donations to ballot campaigns without revealing their own donors.

A change could have a major impact on the role national heavyweight nonprofits like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Organization for Marriage play in Minnesota over the next 17 months. The two sides are gearing up over a 2012 ballot question that would ask voters to legally define marriage in the state Constitution as being between a man and woman. It would solidify an existing legal ban on same-sex marriage.

For-profit corporations like Target may not experience much change, however, because they rely on business revenue rather than donors.

Amendment supporters said that requiring disclosure could scare off potential donors.

Tom Prichard, president of the nonprofit Minnesota Family Council, said that donors could be subject to "physical violence, economic threats or harassment, property damage" if their names are disclosed. "Forcing organizations like ours to make their donors public would have a chilling effect on political speech [and] free speech," Prichard said.

Opponents of the amendment did not testify at Tuesday's hearing, but are watching the matter closely. Donald McFarland, who leads the coalition opposing the measure, said his organization has no official position. "Everyone's watching and waiting for the advice," McFarland said.

The state already requires a higher level of disclosure from groups that donate money to sway the election of a candidate.

But Josiah Neeley, an Indiana-based attorney representing the coalition supporting the amendment, testified that the two situations should not be viewed equally.

"You can't corrupt a ballot question," Neeley said. "It's not a person, it's a legislative measure."

FULL STORY HERE:

Search


Partners

Backbone Campaign
ReclaimDemocracy.org
Center for Media and Democracy
ProsperityAgenda.us
Liberty Tree
Democrats.com
Progressive Democrats of America
Peoples Email Network
Justice Through Music
ePluribusMedia
Locust Fork Journal
Berkeley Fellowship UU\'s Social Justice Committee
BuzzFlash
The Smirking Chimp
Progressive Democrats Sonoma County
BanksterUSA
Chelsea Neighbors United
Atlanta Progressive News
Yes Men
Mark Crispin Miller
NY Metro Progressives
PDA NY CD 14
No More Stolen Elections
Earl Katz-Producer
Dorothy Fadiman-Producer
Bob Fitrakis
Free Press
Columbus Institute
NC Coalition For Verified Voting
American Citizens Together
Delaware Maryland Action Network
Voters Evolt
True Vote 
The People's Activist Network
WeThePeopleNow.Org