S.D. Supreme Court Hears Case On Whether Identity Of Donor To Abortion Ban Initiative Should Be Revealed

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Medical Malpractice / Litigation
Article Date: 02 Oct 2008 - 8:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

The name of an anonymous donor who gave $750,000 to the failed campaign to pass a 2006 ballot measure that would have outlawed most abortions should be released, a prosecutor argued on Monday before the state Supreme Court, the AP/Sioux City Journal reports.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson (R) sued state Rep. Roger Hunt (R) and the anonymous contributor to Promising Future, the corporation established in September 2006 by Hunt. The unidentified contributor made three separate contributions of $250,000 each to VoteYesForLife.com, an entity which campaigned for the ban. Nelson argued that Promising Future should have been required to file campaign finance reports about money it received and spent because Promising Future acted as a ballot question committee by disbursing money to the ballot measure campaign. According to Hunt, the donor is a South Dakota resident who wants to remain anonymous because of fear of possible violence (Walker, AP/Sioux City Journal, 9/29).

A county circuit court in August 2007 ruled that Promising Future was not a ballot question committee and that Hunt was not obliged to disclose the identity of the donor. Nelson appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court. Under South Dakota law, a ballot question committee consists of two or more people who raise money to influence a ballot issue. In addition, the state Legislature earlier that year passed a law that prohibits anonymous political contributions by individuals, organizations, candidates, political committees and political parties. The law requires that such contributions be donated to not-for-profit organizations. It also bars future anonymous donations and aims to eliminate any loopholes by clearly defining a ballot question committee. The law also requires a ballot question committee that receives a contribution from organizations with up to 20 members or shareholders to disclose donors if those donors own more than 10% of the organization. Hunt voted for the new legislation (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/10/07).

Jeff Hallem, an assistant attorney general, argued to the state Supreme Court that Promising Future was a "shell corporation" that meets the definition of a ballot question committee because more than two entities coordinated their efforts. Hallem added that although the law has since been changed, the donor should be identified because the public has a right to know. "This is not a case where Hunt was acting as a mailman," but rather as someone "changing the identity of the money," Hallem said, adding, "It's an entity used to collect and disperse money to support a ballot measure."

Hunt's lawyer, Steve Sanford, said there was not a statute in place in 2006 that allowed the secretary of state to deem the donor a ballot question committee based on motive (AP/Sioux City Journal, 9/29). Sanford added that Nelson cannot apply disclosure laws based on the intent of a group's creators. Justices Judith Meierhenry and Richard Sabers disagreed, saying that they think the intent of Hunt and his donor are relevant.

The state Supreme Court generally waits several weeks before making a ruling, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reports (Verges, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, 9/30).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.