Today, in a win for political transparency, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari seeking to hear an appeal in Rio Grande Foundation v. City of Santa Fe, a case where Campaign Legal Center (CLC) served as counsel to the defendants in the Supreme Court proceedings.
Like many other states and municipalities, Santa Fe requires basic disclosure from those spending money to support or oppose ballot measures in local elections, so as to enable the voting public to assess and understand the interests vying for their votes.
The challenged disclosure provision requires “event-driven” reporting: whenever a person or entity spends $250 or more to support or oppose a ballot proposition, the person is required to disclose that spending, as well as any donors who contributed for the purpose of funding it.
The plaintiff in the case is the Rio Grande Foundation (RGF), an Albuquerque-based nonprofit corporation that regularly participates in legislative and policy advocacy in New Mexico.
In April 2017, one month before Santa Feans would go to the polls to vote on a “soda tax” proposition, RGF announced that it was launching a campaign to defeat the measure.
This “No Way Santa Fe” initiative would include a $7,500 campaign video and website urging voters to reject the proposal, as well as Facebook advertisements promoting the video and $1,500 on express advocacy mailers.
“Voters in Santa Fe, and in every municipality, have a right to know who is spending to influence ballot measure campaigns. We applaud the Supreme Court for denying review in this case and leaving the decision below in place,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center. “Special interests often run elections ads that are deliberately misleading, and today’s ruling means Santa Fe voters will be able to weigh the credibility of those ads and cast an informed vote.”
The challenged disclosure provision requires “event-driven” reporting: whenever a person or entity spends above a certain threshold to support or oppose a city ballot proposition, the person is required to disclose that spending, as well as certain donors who contributed for the purpose of funding it.
When RGF refused to file a campaign report disclosing the in-kind contributions and expenditures related to its “No Way Santa Fe” initiative, a local citizen filed a complaint alleging that RGF had violated the disclosure ordinance.
The city’s Ethics and Campaign Review Board (ECRB) agreed and ordered RGF to file a one-time, six-page campaign report, which revealed that the No Way Santa Fe video and website were produced and contributed by an out-of-state group called the Interstate Policy Alliance, and disclosed one other person who contributed $250 toward the effort.
The ECRB took no further action against RGF and no penalties or fines were assessed but the ordinance was challenged by the Albuquerque nonprofit that regularly seeks to influence legislation and policy in New Mexico.
RGF’s constitutional challenge was rejected by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, and a subsequent appeal to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was dismissed on standing grounds.
The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari leaves the city’s important transparency provision in place as the Supreme Court refuses yet another challenge to campaign finance transparency.
Courts have long recognized that disclosure is a constitutional means of protecting voters’ right to know about the sources of election-related spending.
Shortly thereafter, RGF filed suit against the City of Santa Fe and the ECRB, challenging the disclosure ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article II, § 17 of the New Mexico Constitution.
In February of 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico upheld the city’s transparency law. Rio Grande Foundation then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which dismissed the appeal for lack of standing on Aug. 3, 2021.
RGF subsequently sought review by the Supreme Court of the United States, where its petition for certiorari is currently pending.