Copyright 2004, Eureka Times Standard

Eureka voters frustrated that they can't find out who's behind local political ads

(Eureka Times Standard 11/2/04) -- In 2001, about a year before California's last gubernatorial election, television ads appeared across California slamming then Gov. Gray Davis for his handling of the state's energy crisis.

The ads, paid for by an anonymous group calling itself the American Taxpayers Alliance, heaped one criticism after another on the governor. They ended with the line: "Grayouts from Gray Davis."

Like the Eureka Coalition for Jobs, which is hiding behind a Sacramento lobbyist to place attack ads targeting City Councilman Chris Kerrigan, the American Taxpayers Alliance paid a frontman to place the anti-Davis ads.

The Davis campaign committee sued in an attempt to force the American Taxpayers Alliance to reveal its donor list, citing California's Political Reform Act, which requires political committees to register with the Secretary of State's Office and file a list of contributors.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge sided with the Davis campaign.

But the American Taxpayers Alliance appealed, and in 2002 California's 1st District Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's decision.

The appellate court ruled that because the ads did not use "magic words," such as "vote for" or "vote against," they were constitutionally protected "issue advocacy."

Therefore, the American Taxpayers Alliance didn't have to reveal its donors, the appeals court ruled.

Wayne Ordos, the Sacramento lobbyist working on behalf of the faceless Eureka Coalition for Jobs, said he applied this precedent-setting court case to structure the ad campaign targeting Kerrigan.

"There's no doubt" that Kerrigan is clearly identified as the focus of the ads, Ordos said. But none of the language in the television ads or mailers advocate a vote for or against Kerrigan or his opponent, Rex Bohn.

Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit, nonpartisan free speech protection group based in San Rafael, said the appeals court "carved out a safe harbor in California's very strict (campaign disclosure) rules" with its opinion in Gov. Gray Davis Committee v. American Taxpayers Alliance.

While Scheer said he doesn't necessarily agree with the it, the appeals court decision does borrow some premise in U.S. Supreme Court case law.

During the tumultuous civil rights movement in the early 1960s, the nation's highest court handed down rulings protecting the anonymity of certain groups advocating for social change, because those involved in the groups legitimately feared for their lives.

Forcing them to reveal who they were would have had a "chilling effect" on free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, Scheer said.

The appellate court, in deciding the Davis case, also opined that forcing those running "issue advocacy" ads to register and reveal would have a similar chilling effect, Scheer said.

Monday, Times-Standard Editor Charles Winkler said the newspaper will file a complaint with California's Fair Political Practices Commission.

"The law in this area appears to be gray," Winkler said. "We are dissatisfied with the attitude that the donors in a political campaign can hide behind case law in this situation.

"Therefore, we are filing a complaint with the FPPC to try to force disclosure of the names of donors behind this effort to affect a local city council race," Winkler added.

By Andrew Bird