Mississippi asks high court to hear U.S. Chamber campaign-ads case
By The Associated Press
08.28.02
JACKSON, Miss. — The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether the national Chamber of Commerce must publicly reveal how much it spent on ads for Mississippi Supreme Court candidates.
The attorney general's office is appealing an April ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Court of Appeals overturned a ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate that sided with the state.
In November 2000, Wingate ruled the U.S. Chamber was not exempt from state regulations governing the reporting of campaign expenditures.
The appeals court said Wingate's ruling went against the chamber's First Amendment right to free speech.
The 5th Circuit agreed with the U.S. Chamber that the state "may regulate only those communications containing explicit words advocating the election or defeat of a particular candidate."
Special Assistant Attorney General Hunt Cole Jr. said the state's appeal was filed Aug. 26 with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cole said without some clarification by the Supreme Court, other states' election finance-disclosure laws could be meaningless.
"Under the 5th Circuit's 'narrow' interpretation ... no expenditure for any pro-candidate advertisement would ever be constitutionally subject to state disclosure laws if the ad omitted literal, 'magic' words of exhortation or advocacy, such as 'vote for Jones,' " Cole wrote in the appeal.
The U.S. Chamber claimed the ads run in four Mississippi Supreme Court campaigns were "issue ads" not subject to reporting requirements.
The 5th Circuit said the chamber did not "express advocacy" for anyone in the election despite the ads' criticism of some candidates for past rulings from the bench.
The nation's chief business lobby weighed in on judicial races in Ohio, Michigan and Mississippi. The Chamber's first ad campaign ever included TV spots that cost millions of dollars. The chamber spent about $400,000 in Mississippi, the attorney general's office has said.
Cole, in the appeal, said the states' interest in disclosure of expenditures like that of the U.S. Chamber include "informing the electorate of sources and uses of money influencing candidates and voters."
"The disclosure of expenditures may also lessen the risk that individuals will spend money to support a candidate for future special treatment after the candidate is in office," Cole wrote in the appeal.
Cole said the state contends that the chamber's ads specified candidates and were "plainly a functional equivalent to the campaign slogan 'Smith for Congress.' "