South Dakota Supreme Court Asked To Determine Whether Identity Of Abortion Ban Campaign Donor Must Be Revealed

Main Category: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Also Included In: Abortion;  Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 11 Oct 2007 - 6:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long (R) and Secretary of State Chris Nelson (R) on Friday said that they are asking the state Supreme Court to overturn a ruling preserving the anonymity of a contributor 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/Yankton Press & Dakotan reports (Brokaw, AP/Yankton Press & Dakotan, 10/6).

Case History
State Rep. Roger Hunt (R) in September 2006 established Promising Future, and the corporation later made three separate contributions of $250,000 to VoteYesForLife.com, which campaigned to uphold the ban. Long 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 had asked a judge to decide whether Promising Future meets the definition of such a committee

Minnehaha County, S.D., Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Caldwell in August said Hunt and hiss corporation, Promising Future, were not a ballot question committee and were not obliged to disclose the identity of the donor who gave the $750,000. 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 (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/15).

Nelson's Request
Nelson said the case warrants a review by the state Supreme Court, adding that the appeal also could lead to an interpretation of whether the state has the constitutional right to require financial reporting by committees involved in ballot measures, the AP/Press & Dakotan reports. Nelson said the court needs to decide the issue now because other campaign committees might challenge the state's constitutional authority to require campaign finance reporting (AP/Yankton Press & Dakotan, 10/6).

The state Legislature earlier this 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. In addition, 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 (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/15).

"I think it's important to understand this case is not about abortion" or "some vendetta against Roger Hunt," Nelson said, adding, "It's about campaign finance" (AP/Yankton Press & Dakotan, 10/6).

Reprinted with kind 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.

• Additional
• References
• Citations