South Dakota Circuit Court Judge Says Identity Of Abortion Ban Campaign Donor Not Required To Be Revealed

Main Category: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Also Included In: Abortion;  Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 17 Aug 2007 - 9:00 PDT

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

A South Dakota judge on Monday ruled that state Rep. Roger Hunt (R) should not be required to identify the person who gave $750,000 to Hunt's corporation, Promising Future, which contributed to a campaign to uphold a state law (HB 1215) that would have banned abortion in the state except to save a woman's life, the AP/Sioux City Journal reports (Kafka, AP/Sioux City Journal, 8/14).

The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families successfully blocked the July 1, 2006, enactment of the law by gathering enough signatures to put the issue on the November 2006 ballot, and state voters last November rejected the measure by a 55% to 45% margin. Hunt in September 2006 established Promising Future, and the corporation later made three separate contributions of $250,000 each to VoteYesForLife.com, which campaigned to uphold the ban.

South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long (R) earlier this year filed a civil complaint that asked a judge to decide whether Hunt should be required to disclose the name of the donor. Under South Dakota law, a ballot question committee consists of two or more people who raise money to influence a ballot issue, and Long asked a judge to decide whether Promising Future meets the definition of such a committee (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 1/3).

Ruling, Reaction
Minnehaha County, S.D., Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Caldwell on Monday said Hunt and Promising Future were not a ballot question committee and were not obliged to disclose the identity of the donor. "Giving a contribution does not make a corporation a ballot question committee," she wrote. She also wrote that even if Hunt created Promising Future to protect the identity of the anonymous donor, it does not mean he violated state campaign finance laws at the time. "The ballot committee, in this case VoteYesForLife, disclosed the corporate contributor in its finance report," Caldwell said. "However, the corporation making the contribution was not required to disclose every shareholder of the corporation under the laws in place in 2006," she added.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson (R) said he was "surprised" by the ruling, adding that he hoped to talk with Long on Tuesday about the possibility of an appeal. Hunt said he felt vindicated by the decision. "Last year we were operating under a certain set of rules, and those rules have now been repealed," he said, adding, "I feel that I had every right to operate under whatever the current law was and that's what I was doing in 2006."

Revised Campaign Finance Law
The state Legislature earlier this year passed a law that prohibits anonymous political contributions by individuals, organizations, candidates, political committees and political parties, according to the AP/Journal. 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. In addition, Nelson said the law 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, the AP/Journal reports (AP/Sioux City Journal, 8/14).

"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.