Discussions of campaign finance regulation usually bring to mind images of smoke-filled rooms and wealthy donors — the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson on the Right, and Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and George Soros on the Left. They never seem to include people like Diana Hsieh.
Hsieh is a Colorado resident with a Ph.D. She organized the nonprofit Coalition for Secular Government with her friend Ari Armstrong and plans to raise and spend no more than $3,500 to update and disseminate a paper they authored criticizing “personhood” ballot measures, including one in Colorado, that restrict a woman’s right to abortion.
Most people would praise Hsieh for getting involved in an issue that matters to her. Regardless of your views on personhood, joining together with like-minded citizens to discuss issues of public concern is exactly the kind of political participation that we should encourage in a democracy. Unfortunately, Colorado makes it nearly impossible for most citizens to exercise their basic First Amendment rights.
That’s because Colorado forces groups such as CSG to comply with burdensome “issue committee” regulations designed to hook much bigger fish. Wealthy donors like the Koch brothers and George Soros can afford as many lawyers and accountants as necessary to comply with even the most Byzantine rules. Ordinary citizens like Hsieh can’t.
The ironic and tragic result is that regulations assumed to protect citizens from undue influence by the wealthy actually do the opposite, muffling the voices of average citizens beneath a blanket of rules and threats of fines over the smallest errors.
“It’s frustrating that even our modest efforts are hampered by the Colorado campaign finance system,” Hsieh said, calling the process of dealing with Colorado’s regulations “confusing and dispiriting.”
In one example, CSG was fined when Hsieh was a day late filing a form because her house was flooded. Hsieh had to jump through another regulatory hurdle and appeal to the Colorado secretary of state to get the fine waived.
“We’ve not abandoned our efforts, as most people would have done, but we’ve definitely scaled back our efforts,” Hsieh said.
It’s rare to find someone with Hsieh’s willingness to fight through the red tape. Most would just give up, giving political insiders exactly what they want: control over the agenda.
Fortunately, a recent federal court ruling recognized that this is not what the Constitution envisioned. In explaining why CSG could not be compelled to comply with Colorado’s regulations, Senior District Judge John L. Kane wrote that “the Internet is the new soapbox; it is the new town square. CSG’s ‘personhood’ paper is Tom Paine’s pamphlet. It is the quintessence of political speech.”
The contrast between Colorado’s extensive regulation and the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech is stark. As reported in the Objective Standard, Colorado’s campaign finance laws are summarized in a manual that is 152 pages long. The First Amendment is only 45 words.
Sadly, Colorado is not unique in this respect. Campaign finance rules have a natural tendency to grow increasingly complex over time as new technology and innovations in campaign strategy lead to calls for further regulation to prevent “evasion” of older rules. The result is a system that only a professional can navigate.
This was demonstrated in a 2007 experiment conducted by University of Missouri professor Jeff Milyo on behalf of the Institute for Justice. The experiment asked 255 people to fill out disclosure forms from one of three states — including Colorado — which citizens would need to complete to spend money speaking about a ballot measure. Not a single person could do it correctly.
This is unacceptable in a country that guarantees “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The district court’s decision is a welcome step toward fulfilling that promise, and a lesson to us all: Don’t forget about people like Diana Hsieh when considering campaign finance regulation. Those who focus only on the country’s largest donors miss the forest for the trees.
Luke Wachob is the McWethy Fellow at the Center for Competitive Politics in Alexandria, Va., which represents the Coalition for Secular Government in its First Amendment case against Colorado. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions for editorials, available at this link.
