Apply State Rules To All Issue Groups

There are two truisms in politics: The numbers don’t lie; and, follow the money. On Tuesday, Coeur d’ Alene voters defeated a proposed community center by a resounding 61 percent.

At the 11th hour, a group calling itself Citizens for the Right Community Center launched a stealth campaign opposing the advisory vote. They sent letters to city voters and took out large ads in newspapers. There was no return address, no treasurer and no phone number. It was an anonymous campaign formed to influence the election. Unfortunately, in Idaho this is perfectly legal.

Voters can follow the money on statewide measures in Idaho. State election laws require financial disclosure on statewide issue campaigns. But at county and city levels, issue groups are exempt from reporting requirements for disclosing their treasurer and they do not have to reveal contributors or expenditures.

The organizers of these local-issue campaigns do not have to face the light of day. They can lurk in the shadows.

Jim Hansen of United Vision for Idaho, a campaign reform group, said this of anonymous issue groups: “The messenger is as important as the message. Not to have to face the voters is irresponsible in an open society.”

Not only irresponsible, it is cowardly. It’s like a bully hiding in the bushes and launching rocks from a slingshot. Just as people want to know who is throwing the rocks, the public deserves to know who is speaking out.

In Idaho, issue groups have free reign to participate and influence the outcome of an election without accountability to the voters.

Is it any wonder the public has grown progressively cynical about politics? Rather than congratulate ourselves in Coeur d’Alene over a 37 percent turnout for an off-year election, we should be asking ourselves why 63 percent stayed home and didn’t vote.

It’s time to step out of the shadows and face the light of day. Issue groups in city and county elections should have the same reporting requirements as in statewide ballot measures.

To access the public debate, there should be an obligation to be publicly identified.

The voters deserve to know who is speaking.