State: Donor to abortion ban should be disclosed

By The Associated Press | Saturday, March 17, 2007

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

SIOUX FALLS -- South Dakota officials have responded to state Rep. Roger Hunt's motion to dismiss a complaint filed over the source of $750,000 in donations to last year's abortion ban campaign.

The state wants Hunt, R-Brandon, to name the donor of the money.

Hunt, who has said only that the donor is a South Dakota resident, would not comment on the state's latest court filing.

At issue is whether Hunt's Promising Future Inc. is a ballot-question committee. If so, state law says it must report contributors' identities.

Attorney General Larry Long challenges Hunt's claim that he has a First Amendment right to keep the name secret. Long's response says South Dakota has an interest in "preventing veiled political actors from concealing their involvement in the political process."

"When voters are trying to figure out who to vote for or against in an election, it's important to know who is giving them money, because that is an indication of how they are going to vote on issues," Long said.

Oral arguments are set for April 23 in a Sioux Falls courtroom.

Hunt has said Promising Future is not a ballot-question committee because it is a corporation -- and that state law defines a corporation as one individual.

State law says a ballot-question committee is "any two or more people who cooperate for the purpose of raising, collecting or disbursing money for the adoption or defeat of any question submitted to the voters."

Long said that Hunt filed on behalf of Promising Future "a ballot-question committee campaign finance report and a supplemental campaign finance report disclosing the $750,000 expenditures to Vote Yes for Life," the main group promoting an abortion ban that voters rejected in the general election.

The filing also says Promising Future was incorporated shortly before the election and that Hunt holds all the corporation's offices.

"This alleged activity fits within the definition of a 'ballot-question committee,"' Long said in court papers.

Hunt has argued that the state statutes are vague and violate free speech.

"If we thought he was right, we wouldn't have sued him," Long said.