The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) submitted comments today to the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) in regards to its review of issue advocacy regulation.
The GAB is scheduled to review next week GAB 1.28, "Scope of regulated activity; election of candidates," to determine whether its regulation of certain types of political communication should be amended.
At the heart of the debate is whether or not citizens groups who engage in issue advocacy should face greater regulation when it engages in so-called "electioneering communication." Electioneering communication broadly defined at the federal level is any "broadcast, cable or satellite communication" that occurs within 30 days of a primary, convention, or caucus, or 60 days of a general election, and mentions the name of a candidate for office.
CCP’s submitted comments urge the GAB to reaffirm the state’s current regulations so as to best comply with recent United States Supreme Court rulings and give citizens groups adequate room to engage in issue advocacy.
CCP argues:
– The GAB lacks the authority to make sweeping changes to its regulations without legislative authority,
– Even if the GAB had legislative authority, it could not impose funding restrictions on organizations engaged in "electioneering communications."
The Supreme Court in 2006 declared that "electioneering communications" can not be subject to funding source prohibitions unless the advertisement contains "express advocacy" or "is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
Additionally, the GAB can not presume the electioneering nature of communications made in non-broadcast media without intensive study and review.
– The GAB can not impose disclosure requirements on organizations engaged in genuine issue advocacy.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of disclosure requirements for advocacy that meets the definition of "electioneering communication." But CCP contends that once an advertisement is deemed to be a genuine issue ad – that is, it is neither express advocacy, nor its functional equivalent – the justification for forced disclosure disappears.
CCP’s comments can be found here: https://www.ifs.org/docLib/20080821_WIGABRuleElBd128.pdf
