Advertisement
Government Accountability Board members asked staff attorneys today to research whether they have the power to amend rules on so-called issue ads to force full disclosure of the ads’ sources and funding. The board could consider new rules at its next meeting in October.
Issue ads don’t explicitly recommend voting for or against a particular candidate, but they usually mention a candidate’s name and criticize or praise the candidate’s history or stances. Groups who run them aren’t required to disclose their identity, who is paying for the ads or how much they cost.
Politicians and good government advocates have decried the ads for years. They complain the groups behind them dominate elections but are accountable to no one.
The controversy heated up during this past spring’s state Supreme Court election, in which Burnett County Circuit Judge Michael Gableman defeated incumbent Justice Louis Butler. Issue ads run during the race accused Gableman of being soft on sex predators and Butler of overturning an accused rapist’s conviction.
“It’s changing the whole (political) culture right before my eyes,” board member Michael Brennan said.
State election laws require full disclosure only on ads that specifically call for a candidate’s defeat or election.
The GAB wants to apply that requirement to ads that push for a candidate’s election or defeat without expressly calling for it with words such as “vote for” or “defeat.” The question is how to clearly spot such ads.
Board attorney Jonathan Becker proposed a new rule that would apply disclosure requirements to any ad that refers to a candidate’s personal qualities, character, stances, public record or an opponent’s campaign.
Lawyers bickered before the board for hours Thursday over whether it has the authority to even address the issue and whether expanding the regulations would infringe on free speech.
Becker said the board can regulate anything that influences an election. The board also can create rules to prevent the appearance of corruption, which he said is present in the ads.
Stephen Hoersting is an attorney for the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit organization that supports free and competitive elections. He maintained the board doesn’t have the power to regulate ads that don’t expressly advocate for or against a candidate and should wait for the Legislature to expand state regulations.
James Buchen, vice president of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business group and a staunch Republican ally, told the board he doesn’t want regulation on any speech. Disclosing who ran the ad and for how much could open the group up to retribution from the government, he said.
Jay Heck, executive director of government watchdog group Common Cause in Wisconsin, told the board the Legislature can review whatever rules the board adopts and urged members to disregard “opponents of transparency.”
Board members ultimately voted to affirm the current rules. They told Becker to do more research on their authority through unbiased legal experts and come back with another proposal.
