Ben Nesselhuf for South Dakota—Democratic Candidate for Secretary of State

By a 3-to-1 ratio, South Dakotans say campaign finance disclosure laws, such as the one state Rep. Roger Hunt skirted in 2006, provide valuable information for voters. The minority say those laws violate a donor’s right to free speech.

The figures come from a 2007 survey conducted by the Government Research Bureau at the University of South Dakota, which researched campaign finance and ballot issue elections for Secretary of State Chris Nelson’s lawsuit against Hunt.

After two unfavorable rulings from a circuit judge, Nelson last month ended his lawsuit against Hunt, which aimed to reveal the identity of a $750,000 donor to the failed 2006 campaign to end abortion in South Dakota. Attorney General Marty Jackley recently released the survey results for the first time to the Argus Leader.

Because the case never went to trial, the poll was not used in court. But the responses from 794 South Dakotans indicate strong support for enforcing campaign finance disclosure laws, no matter their party affiliation.

Nelson, who hadn’t seen the survey results until Wednesday, said they are consistent with what he has heard from people throughout the state.

“There’s no question about it. We had a large number of people that told me they thought this was the right thing to do,” he said.

Survey participants were told their answers would be used by the attorney general in a legal case, but the questions did not mention Hunt’s name or the facts of the case.

In one question, 75.4 percent agreed or strongly agreed that disclosure laws provide valuable information for voters, while 20.2 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In another, participants were asked which view was closer to their own position on the effect of disclosure laws: that they provide valuable information or they violate free speech. Valuable information won 72.4 percent to 22.8 percent.

On other questions, South Dakotans said they like having the opportunity to make laws through the initiative and referendum process, even though the ballot wording often is confusing and they see the process as somewhat co-opted by special interests.

“Viewed together, it is clear that voters value the process, value disclosure information and value the efforts of the state to support their information needs,” USD professor Rich Braunstein wrote in an analysis of the survey results.

The problem for the state was that the laws in 2006 – which were amended in the controversy’s wake – allowed Hunt to hide his client’s identity by forming a corporation; donors of $100 and more were required to disclose their personal names and addresses but corporations were not. Circuit Judge Kathleen Caldwell also ruled that the state could not file a civil lawsuit in an attempt to enforce a law with criminal penalties.

Had Caldwell allowed the case to go to trial, the state planned to introduce the survey results as evidence that the statute holds up against First Amendment scrutiny. Other states have used surveys for that purpose in similar cases.

Steve Sanford, Hunt’s lawyer, was surprised that even one out of four respondents thought of disclosure laws as more of a free speech infringement than valuable voting information.
“It’s not surprising that most people would think campaign finance disclosure laws are a good thing, generally,” Sanford said.

“The state just had inadequate laws to do what the public thinks should be done.”