Rhode Island’s Political Spending Transparency Law Upheld by Federal Appeals Court

Date
Body

Rhode Island’s political spending transparency rules have been upheld by the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals observed that “a well-informed electorate is as vital to the survival of a democracy as air is to the survival of human life” while upholding the state’s 2012 Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications Act

Read the ruling here.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), along with Common Cause Rhode Island and the League of Women Voters of Rhode Island, filed an amicus brief in the case, in support of the state and the transparency law.

“Rhode Islanders have a right to know who is spending in an attempt to influence their votes,” said Austin Graham, CLC legal counsel. “The First Circuit’s decision preserves that right by upholding Rhode Island’s transparency rules for election spending and helps to ensure state voters remain well-informed – which, to quote the First Circuit’s opinion, is ‘as vital to the survival of a democracy as air is to the survival of human life.’

“This ruling represents a win for Rhode Island’s voters. We deserve to know who’s paying to influence our elections,” said Common Cause Rhode Island Executive Director John Marion. “Voters need to be able to ‘consider the source’ of information when deciding whether or not to believe it. And if the ‘source’ is shielded, then we have no way of judging motivations behind the information or whether it’s trustworthy.”

Among other provisions, Rhode Island’s political transparency rules require groups spending $1,000 or more on electioneering ads to disclose donors that gave at least $1,000 to fund the ads and provide that ads run by certain groups must include “top-five” disclaimers identifying their five largest contributors.

In 2019, the Gaspee Project and Illinois Opportunity Project challenged the law, seeking to spend thousands of dollars distributing election-related mailers to Rhode Island voters without identifying themselves or their large contributors to the public.

In August 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the complaint, finding the provisions constitutionally serve the state’s vital interest in equipping voters with essential information about special interests spending to influence their vote.

The appeals court held that Rhode Island's law satisfies exacting scrutiny and is narrowly tailored to the state’s important interest in an informed electorate, rejecting the plaintiffs’ attempts to compare their privacy concerns to NAACP v. Alabama and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta.

The law was proposed and passed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that itself upheld federal disclosure requirements for independent expenditures.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

Cervini v. Cisneros

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center Action (CLCA) filed an amicus brief in support of campaign workers and supporters of a 2020 presidential campaign invoking their rights to be free from political intimidation.

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

About This Case

On Oct. 30, 2020, supporters of one 2020 presidential campaign attempted to intimidate the supporters of an opposing campaign by surrounding and threatening them while driving on the interstate between San Antonio and Austin, Texas. This so-called “Trump Train” intimidation tactic terrorized the campaign workers and supporters, preventing them from holding scheduled campaign events. 

The campaign workers and supporters sued the Trump Train participants under a Reconstruction-era statute, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, alleging that the participants formed a civil conspiracy to use intimidation to prevent their political advocacy. 

Our Brief

CLCA filed an amicus brief in federal court supporting the intimidated campaign workers’ case. The brief explains why the key provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 apply to these facts based on the statute’s text, the 1871 Congress’s design and intent and historical source material.

Plaintiffs

Cervini

Defendant

Cisneros

BLOC et al v. Spindell et al (Wisconsin Redistricting)

At a Glance

CLC is representing Wisconsin voters and advocacy organizations in a legal challenge to ensure that Wisconsin’s current state assembly maps are struck down as unconstitutional and new maps are drawn for future elections.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
About This Case/Action

The 2020 Census has revealed population shifts in the state of Wisconsin. The districts are now unequally populated and the state’s maps were already one of the most egregious gerrymanders in America over the past decade. Moreover, the existing districts dilute the ability of Black voters in Milwaukee to elect their preferred candidates.

The U.S. Census Bureau released the data from the 2020 census which will be used to redraw voting districts across the country. The maps that are drawn this year will shape our lives and our communities for the next decade. They impact not just whether there will be equity in representation but also whether there will be equity in the distribution of resources.

On behalf of Black Leaders Organizing for Communities (BLOC), Voces de la Frontera and League of Women Voters of Wisconsin and three individual voters, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a lawsuit in Wisconsin on Aug. 19, 2021 alleging malapportionment of the existing state legislative districts. The complaint asks the court to set a schedule to consider a court-drawn plan, given the likelihood the legislature and governor are unable to agree on new maps.

On Sept. 7, 2021, CLC and partners filed an amended complaint alleging that Wisconsin’s current state assembly plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The assembly map dilutes the voting strength of Black voters in the Milwaukee area by packing them in excessively high numbers in fewer districts and by cracking them into districts where they cannot elect their preferred candidates.

CLC and partners submitted an alternative plan with seven Black voting age population majority districts, which would provide Black voters with the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates in additional districts.

BACKGROUND

CLC is fighting to ensure that this upcoming decade’s maps are fair and treat all Wisconsin voters equally. No matter our race or zip code, all voters should have equal say in the decisions that shape our future.

No matter the social or political issues that are a voter’s ultimate concern, redistricting is at the root of whether they will be able to effectively advocate for that issue over the next 10 years. Furthermore, the districts that are drawn determine how resources will be distributed—and if that distribution will be fair and just.

Voters should expect that the community districting process will be transparent and map drawers will consider the diverse interests of community members. Far too often, however, politicians manipulate the redistricting process by splitting voters into districts that make it harder to keep those politicians accountable at the ballot box. In Wisconsin, this has been the case recently.

In an environment conducive to good map drawing, the Wisconsin legislature and governor would draw new maps that accurately reflect the population and don’t advantage one party over another. Unfortunately, in each of the previous four decades, when control over Wisconsin's government has been divided between members of the two parties, the legislature and governor have been unbale to draw maps. In the most recent round in 2011, one party controlled the process, but the maps were twice subject to litigation—including the case that CLC brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017 in Gill v. Whitford. Gridlock in the Wisconsin state government should not prevent Wisconsinites from having their constitutional rights protected. This is CLC’s first redistricting lawsuit of this cycle, and we will continue to advocate for fair maps during this critical period.

Plaintiffs

Black Leaders Organizing for Communities (BLOC), Voces de la Frontera and League of Women Voters of Wisconsin

Defendant

Wisconsin Elections Commission

Defending Democracy in the Age of Misinformation

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) hosted the virtual event, “Defending Democracy in the Age of Misinformation,” on Jonathan Rauch’s new book, “The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth.”

During the course of his conversation with CLC's President Trevor Potter, Rauch, senior fellow, governance studies at the Brookings Institution, shared that while there is no silver bullet to completely stop the spread of misinformation that has had an impact on our democratic process, there are things we can do to incentivize truth and improve transparency around our information landscape.