Advertisement
But it won’t happen before the Nov. 4 election — or, most likely, the spring 2009 election.
The state board that governs elections decided Monday that it has the power to regulate so-called issue ads. But exactly how it will do that remains to be seen.
The Government Accountability Board ordered attorneys to continue researching the issue and come back with a proposal.
Supporters of regulation hope to make those paying for the ads more accountable and require them to disclose where they get their money, along with other information.
But the Legislature must approve anything the board does, which could be a significant hurdle. And even if the Legislature goes along, at least one of the groups is expected to challenge any regulations as a violation of its First Amendment rights.
“I don’t think we should be concerned about whether we are sued or not sued,” board chairman Thomas Cane said, when the board’s attorney told him about the likelihood of a lawsuit. “We should do what we think is right.”
Cane and five other retired judges sit on the board.
An attorney who represents many groups that run the ads argued it was up to the Legislature, and not the Government Accountability Board, to require the additional disclosure. Mike Wittenwyler said he anticipates details of the enhanced regulation will take months to work out and all the new rules would do is stop the ads from being broadcast.
Government watchdog groups have been pushing for additional disclosure for years and urged the board to rein in the ads, which played heavily in the past two state Supreme Court elections. Ads in those two races from third party groups totaled about $8 million of the $12 million spent, said Mike McCabe, director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. He and Jay Heck, the head of Common Cause in Wisconsin, pushed for regulation.
Both McCabe and Heck said they think there is growing political will in the Legislature to address the issue, given the prevalence of the ads coming from groups that back both Democrats and Republicans.
State election laws currently require full disclosure only on ads that specifically call for a candidate’s defeat or election.
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.
That would change under the proposal the board is considering. Under that, all ads that refer to a candidate’s personal qualities, character, stances, public record or an opponent’s campaign would have the same reporting requirements as ads calling for a candidate’s defeat or election.
Corporations also wouldn’t be allowed to pay for the ads, which could greatly reduce their number.
