Judge declines to suspend rules on R-71 contributions

A federal judge has denied an emergency request that would have allowed opponents of Referendum 71 to accept large donations this late in the campaign — a small setback in a series of bold legal moves that could have ramifications far beyond the Nov. 3 election.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Leighton in Tacoma on Tuesday denied the request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction by Family PAC, which wanted to suspend a ban on contributions above $5,000 in the final weeks of a campaign and a requirement to identify some smaller donors.

"I do not believe it is in the public interest for court, the week before an election, to intervene and change the rules of the game at the last minute," Leighton said.

A full hearing on the merits of the case has not yet been scheduled.

Family PAC is working for the rejection of Referendum 71, which asks voters to approve or reject a state law expanding benefits given to same-sex and senior registered domestic partners.

In the R-71 battle and in fights over same-sex marriage in Maine and California, traditional-marriage proponents have filed lawsuits seeking to shield the names of petition signers or donors or to lift contribution limits.

In Washington, a suit filed by one such group to keep secret the names of people who signed petitions to put the expanded-benefits bill to a public vote has caught the interest of the U.S. Supreme Court, which may take it up next year. That suit says petition signers face harassment by gay-rights supporters if their names are made public, putting a chill on their free-speech rights. The developments have raised alarm among some gay-rights groups.

Jennifer Pizer with Lambda Legal, a national gay-rights legal-advocacy group, says states have public-disclosure laws in the interest of open government. "We as a society are entitled to know who is behind or who is pushing for a particular change in law," she said. Instances of harassment thus far have been minor and few in number and don't warrant changing disclosure laws, she said.

The state's Attorney General's Office is defending the public-disclosure laws. Spokeswoman Janelle Guthrie said of Tuesday's ruling: "This is a good day for open and transparent government.

"Voters approved our campaign-finance initiative overwhelmingly to assure transparency in campaigns," she said. "Now voters will be able to research donations on both sides of the issue."

But James Bopp Jr., an Indiana attorney who serves as lead counsel on the cases seeking to change the laws, says the issue of harassment is real and serious.

And he has challenged as unconstitutional Washington's law banning large contributions in the three weeks before the election, saying it limits the ability of citizens to "participate at the level they would like to."

Further, he says the state's requirement to identify donors who give more than $25 is far too low a threshold. No voters "in their right mind would care who gave $26 to a campaign," he said.

Several constitutional-law experts said Family PAC has a good case — or at least enough to merit a full hearing.

Eugene Volokh, law professor with the University of California, Los Angeles, says contribution limits make sense when applied to candidates because of the fear that a large-enough contribution could corrupt them. But "you can't cap contributions to ballot-measure campaigns because you can't bribe a ballot measure," Volokh said.

Stewart Jay, a University of Washington law professor, said that while campaign donors don't generally have a right to anonymity, in this case there are enough plausible concerns about possible harassment for a judge to weigh the evidence.

He says the same regarding the core question in the case the Supreme Court may take up: whether to disclose the names of petition signers."There are significant First Amendment concerns here, regardless of your political perspective," he said.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.