Judge has
‘serious questions’ on
donor disclosure law

Still, the Christian Coalition's
restraining order is denied

By Mike Yuen
Star-Bulletin

A federal judge doubts the constitutionality of a state law that requires advocacy groups to disclose the names, addresses and occupations of donors who give $100 or more to influence ballot measures, such as the proposed ban of same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge Susan Mollway said yesterday that she had "very serious questions," but she denied a temporary restraining order sought by the national Christian Coalition of Virginia Beach, Va., which challenged the law.

That's because the coalition's attorney, Robert Newmeyer of Terre Haute, Ind., could not produce a single contributor who has given at least $100 specifically earmarked for the passage of a proposed constitutional amendment that would give the Legislature the authority to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Mollway also noted that the coalition couldn't show that it would be harmed if the order wasn't granted.

On Sunday, the coalition plans to distribute at churches throughout the state thousands of "voter guides" that advocate a "yes" vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment.

The coalition sought the restraining order to avoid being prosecuted for violating a law it believes to be unconstitutional.

The national Christian Coalition has given its Hawaii affiliate $5,000 for organizational work and chapter building.

The Hawaii Christian Coalition has installed a new board and kept a low profile in the fight on the marriage amendment since Linda Rosehill, strategist for Save Traditional Marriage-'98, complained to the coalition's national office. The then-isle coalition leaders were too shrill and were easily used by the opposition to portray the entire yes-vote campaign as extremist and homophobic, Rosehill said.

Newmeyer argued that it should be sufficient disclosure that the voter guides state that they're from the coalition. It is unreasonable for the state Campaign Spending Commission to require, as it first did, a list of all the people who made contributions totaling $100 or more during the current two-year election cycle.

Newmeyer said the commission later narrowed its request to only those who specifically gave at least $100 for passage of the anti-gay marriage initiative.

Deputy Attorney General Jon Itomura argued that identifying donors giving $100 or more is important because it is in the public's interest to have on record the names of people trying to influence the outcome of an election and the amounts they gave. The requirement also helps to protect against fraud and corruption, and to ensure the separation of church and state, he said.

Mollway said, "I have a lot of concerns with the donor identification provision."

Newmeyer said that unlike the election of candidates, ballot measures do not present an opportunity for fraud and corruption. After an initiative is approved, who in office is going to get paid off? he asked.

Before the hearing, former City Council Chairman Gary Gill, an Executive Committee member of Protect Our Constitution, which is spearheading the no-vote drive on the anti-gay marriage measure, denounced the Christian Coalition's challenge of the state campaign spending law.

"It's bad enough they come here trying to tell us how to vote and how to live. And now they are trying to do these things without telling us who they are," Gill said.

Newmeyer said the state's requirement for registration and reporting of donors is an unnecessary burden that infringes on free speech.

"Why should you have to do that, to talk about the merits of a ballot issue, for Pete's sake?" Newmeyer said after the hearing. "This is America; this isn't the old Soviet Union."

He also contended that the Christian Coalition's First Amendment rights should be able to extend to anonymous speech, if it wanted to do so.

Judge Mollway noted that the state Attorney General's Office has already acknowledged as unconstitutional the campaign spending law's $1,000 contribution limit on a ballot issue and the requirement that advocacy committees have to be registered for 12 months before they can attempt to influence public issues.