Judge: Anonymous abortion ban donation OK
Posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2007
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- A circuit judge ruled Monday that state Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, does not have to disclose a $750,000 contributor to a failed election effort to ban most abortions in South Dakota.
State officials filed a lawsuit against Hunt earlier this year in an effort to force him to identify the anonymous donor.
But Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell has ruled in Hunt's favor and dismissed the case.
The ballot measure to end most abortions failed by a vote of 56 percent to 44 percent. Lawmakers had approved the proposal, but it was put on hold when opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot.
Hunt set up a corporation last September called Promising Future that gave the money to VoteYesForLife.com, a group supporting the abortion ban. The lawmaker, a staunch abortion foe, said the person who gave the money is a South Dakota resident and wants to remain anonymous out of fear of possible violence.
Secretary of State Chris Nelson argued that Promising Future was a ballot question committee that was required under state law to disclose the source of its money.
Nelson said Monday he would discuss the possibility of an appeal with Attorney General Larry Long.
"I'm surprised," Nelson said after hearing of the decision.
Caldwell said Hunt and the corporation he set up to make the donations, which were done in $250,000 increments, are not a ballot question committee and need not disclose the identity of the donor.
"Giving a contribution does not make a corporation a ballot question committee," the judge wrote.
Hunt, who is a lawyer, said he feels vindicated. The anonymous donation was legal under laws that were in effect at the time, he said.
"Last year we were operating under a certain set of rules, and those rules have now been repealed," Hunt said. "I didn't have any problem repealing the rules, but I feel that I had every right to operate under whatever the current law was and that's what I was doing in 2006."
Even if Promising Future was formed with the motive of protecting the identity of the anonymous donor, that does not mean its conduct violated state campaign finance laws on the books at the time, Caldwell said in her decision.
A corporation may contribute to ballot question committees, she said.
"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."
To ensure that such anonymous donations are not made in the future, this year's Legislature passed a law that bars secret political contributions by individuals, organizations, candidates, political committees and political parties. Any such contributions must be donated to nonprofit charitable organizations.
Hunt voted for the changes. It was not disingenuous to vote for the new law that forbids anonymous donors but help an anonymous donor make a large political contribution before the last election, he said. Laws constantly evolve, the veteran legislator said.
Nelson, who hoped to talk with Long Tuesday, said the new law not only forbids future anonymous donations but also more clearly defines a ballot question committee to eliminate any loopholes.
"There's also a section in there that says, if you're a ballot question committee and you are receiving a contribution from a corporation that has a limited number of shareholders, those also have to be disclosed," the secretary of state said.
Organizations with up to 20 members or shareholders must disclose donors if those donors own more than 10 percent of the organization, Nelson said.
The new law clears up any ambiguity that may have existed about campaign contributions, Hunt said. He denied using a loophole to avoid disclosure of the $750,000 donor.
"We said the secretary of state was reading more into the previous law than existed, and it's the right of every citizen to interpret the law and the court determines if we're right, wrong or otherwise," Hunt said. "In this particular case, the court said the secretary of state was clearly wrong and the statute didn't prohibit what the secretary of state thought it did."
Hunt said the anonymous donation, which no longer would be allowed under current state law, was legal and appropriate at the time.
State officials filed a lawsuit against Hunt earlier this year in an effort to force him to identify the anonymous donor.
But Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell has ruled in Hunt's favor and dismissed the case.
The ballot measure to end most abortions failed by a vote of 56 percent to 44 percent. Lawmakers had approved the proposal, but it was put on hold when opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot.
Hunt set up a corporation last September called Promising Future that gave the money to VoteYesForLife.com, a group supporting the abortion ban. The lawmaker, a staunch abortion foe, said the person who gave the money is a South Dakota resident and wants to remain anonymous out of fear of possible violence.
Secretary of State Chris Nelson argued that Promising Future was a ballot question committee that was required under state law to disclose the source of its money.
Nelson said Monday he would discuss the possibility of an appeal with Attorney General Larry Long.
"I'm surprised," Nelson said after hearing of the decision.
Caldwell said Hunt and the corporation he set up to make the donations, which were done in $250,000 increments, are not a ballot question committee and need not disclose the identity of the donor.
"Giving a contribution does not make a corporation a ballot question committee," the judge wrote.
Hunt, who is a lawyer, said he feels vindicated. The anonymous donation was legal under laws that were in effect at the time, he said.
"Last year we were operating under a certain set of rules, and those rules have now been repealed," Hunt said. "I didn't have any problem repealing the rules, but I feel that I had every right to operate under whatever the current law was and that's what I was doing in 2006."
Even if Promising Future was formed with the motive of protecting the identity of the anonymous donor, that does not mean its conduct violated state campaign finance laws on the books at the time, Caldwell said in her decision.
A corporation may contribute to ballot question committees, she said.
"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."
To ensure that such anonymous donations are not made in the future, this year's Legislature passed a law that bars secret political contributions by individuals, organizations, candidates, political committees and political parties. Any such contributions must be donated to nonprofit charitable organizations.
Hunt voted for the changes. It was not disingenuous to vote for the new law that forbids anonymous donors but help an anonymous donor make a large political contribution before the last election, he said. Laws constantly evolve, the veteran legislator said.
Nelson, who hoped to talk with Long Tuesday, said the new law not only forbids future anonymous donations but also more clearly defines a ballot question committee to eliminate any loopholes.
"There's also a section in there that says, if you're a ballot question committee and you are receiving a contribution from a corporation that has a limited number of shareholders, those also have to be disclosed," the secretary of state said.
Organizations with up to 20 members or shareholders must disclose donors if those donors own more than 10 percent of the organization, Nelson said.
The new law clears up any ambiguity that may have existed about campaign contributions, Hunt said. He denied using a loophole to avoid disclosure of the $750,000 donor.
"We said the secretary of state was reading more into the previous law than existed, and it's the right of every citizen to interpret the law and the court determines if we're right, wrong or otherwise," Hunt said. "In this particular case, the court said the secretary of state was clearly wrong and the statute didn't prohibit what the secretary of state thought it did."
Hunt said the anonymous donation, which no longer would be allowed under current state law, was legal and appropriate at the time.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
