When Karen Sampson and six of her neighbors decided to oppose a local ballot initiative, they learned an important lesson about modern American politics: To speak out, you need more than an opinion. Today, you also need a lawyer
Karen and her neighbors discovered this last year after speaking out against the annexation of their tiny neighborhood to the nearby town of Parker, Colo. They sent out flyers, talked to neighbors, and printed “No Annexation” lawn signs. For this classic exercise in American participatory democracy, they found themselves sued for violating Colorado’s campaign-finance laws.
A new survey released today by the Institute for Justice shows what Karen and her neighbors now know all too well: Campaign-finance laws increasingly threaten the free speech and privacy of ordinary people without providing any appreciable benefits.
Colorado’s campaign-finance laws require any group that spends at least $200 to “support or oppose” a ballot initiative to register with the government as an “issue committee” and file reports disclosing their expenditures and contributions, including the name, address, and often even the employer of people who financially support their efforts.
In short, Karen and her neighbors were sued for expressing an opinion without first filing the proper paperwork.
All 24 states that permit citizen initiatives have similar regulations. The driving force behind such laws is the idea of “disclosure” — that groups who favor or oppose a ballot issue should be required to reveal information about their donors and activities to the government and the public. To proponents, the idea seems a harmless way to ensure an informed electorate.
Not surprisingly, most people agree. The Institute for Justice polled more than 2,000 citizens in six states with ballot issue elections, and found that people overwhelmingly agree with the idea of disclosure.
CONTINUED 1 2 Next > 
