Sec. of State candidates stay quiet on financial disclosure for TV issue ads

In recent weeks the candidates for Secretary of State have traded criticisms over which party has a better platform for election reform, but so far no candidate has chosen to weigh in on one of the most central issues in campaign finance — television issue ads.

Issue ads are campaign ads taken out not by candidates but by third parties, ads that do not explicitly endorse a candidate but are clearly designed to influence votes for or against one person in an electoral race.

In a recent ruling made in response to a request for interpretation by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land said that state law does not require the sponsors of these television issue ads to disclose who put up the money for them.

These ads represent a major chunk of election spending.

According to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network (MCFN), which tracks spending on political ads, in the last decade more than $45 million has been spent on these ads.

In the 2008 Michigan Supreme Court campaign $3.8 million was spent on issue ads, more than the total spent by the candidates’ committees and reported independent expenditures.

The issue ads included the most prominent advertisements of the campaign: Out of Touch, sponsored by the Michigan Republican Party; The Sleeping Judge, sponsored by the Michigan Democratic Party; and Dangerous Rulings, sponsored by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

This year a group called Americans for Job Security has spent at least $272,680 on ads that attack Republican gubernatorial candidate Pete Hoekstra and appear to be coordinated with the gubernatorial campaign of Mike Cox.

Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance network says he believes that state law could be interpreted to require disclosure of who exactly is paying for those issue ads.

State Sen. Michelle McManus (R-Lake Leelanau), chair of the Senate Committee on Campaigns and Elections and Democratic candidate, and law professor Jocelyn Benson of Detroit have both named election reform as among their top priorities.

McManus has introduced a bill to that sets deadlines for the Secretary of State to respond to campaign finance violations and earlier this month challenged Benson to define her views on campaign finance reform.

Benson responded, naming six priorities — legislation to promote greater disclosure and transparency requirements, more consistent and non-partisan enforcement of campaign finance violations, a shareholders bill of rights, prohibiting foreign money in Michigan’s elections, and eliminating potential for quid pro quo corruption.

“As Secretary of State, I will protect the democratic process from corruption,“ she said in a statement. “Democracy and government work best when public servants truly serve the public, not big corporations that spend the most to help them win elections. When a corporation buys an ad to try to influence voters, citizens need to know who’s paying for it. Transparency is key to limiting corruption, promoting accountability, and ensuring a healthy democracy.”

But last week when Michigan Messenger asked each of the candidates whether financial disclosure should be required for television issue ads, only Calhoun County Clerk Anne Norlander — currently last in the polls — was willing to discuss the question, and she didn’t have an answer.

“As secretary of state I don’t have the authority to pass laws but would like to work with the legislature to see if we can bring more transparency to campaign finance laws,” she said.

Norlander said that she wasn’t sure whether Land was correct in interpreting state campaign finance law to mean that TV issue ads don’t require disclosure.

“Many different interpretations can come out of the same law,” she said. “I know that her opinion was countered with another one. This is a legal question that I would hesitate to delve into without more thorough examination.”

Despite her previous statement about the need for greater disclosure by corporations that purchase ads, the Benson campaign chose not to weigh in on whether and how financial disclosure should be required for television issue ads. Benson also chose not to say whether she agreed with Land’s finding that such disclosure is not required under state law.

Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network said that the candidates have reasons for not advocating for stronger financial disclosure rules.

“To be successful, any Secretary of State candidate will need significant financial support from her party’s most influential interest groups,” said Robinson of MCFN. “None of those interest groups, on either side, want their underground activity exposed to sunlight. Candidates are understandably reluctant to bite the hands that feed them.”

Even if a Secretary of State candidate did take a position in favor of greater disclosure, it might not make much difference, Robinson said.

“A Secretary of State can do some positive things through promulgation of rules, declaratory rulings and interpretative statements, but she can’t make up for the bipartisan legislative conspiracy to hide the financial activity of the interest groups that move the pieces on the grand political chess board.,“ he said. “Transparency would make it embarrassing, or worse, when the investors come looking for the return on their investments.”

Robinson said that he believes that a citizen initiative is the only hope for laws to require accountability for political spending.

Bill Ballenger, former Republican state senator and editor of Inside Michigan Politics said that there is no excuse for political candidates not supporting financial disclosure for issue ads.

“The question of “who is behind” all these mysterious “issue” ads — which are almost always thinly disguised attacks on various officeholders or candidates — is the great unknown in our electoral/campaign process today. It cries out for full disclosure — of the money spent, and who’s spending it (by name!). There is no excuse for these Secretary of State candidates — or for any other candidate for any other office, for that matter — not supporting this reform.”