Federal court invalidates Connecticut disclosure law

By

Ethan Rice

Welcome to The Disclosure Digest! Keep an eye out for new editions published on Wednesdays through June 2022. 

Federal court invalidates Connecticut disclosure law

On Jan. 19, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued its final ruling in Kissel v. Seagull, striking down a Connecticut statute that required paid solicitors to disclose the names and addresses of donors to the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection upon request. 

Background

Adam Kissel, a senior fellow at the Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy, filed the federal lawsuit against Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection (DPC) commissioner Michelle H. Seagull on Jan. 28, 2021. At the time, Kissel worked as an independent contractor fundraising for the Jack Miller Center, an educational nonprofit based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In the lawsuit, Kissel alleged Connecticut’s fundraising regulations hindered his ability to communicate with prospective donors in the state. 

Under the Solicitation of Charitable Funds Act, Connecticut requires independent paid solicitors to notify the DPC at least 20 days in advance of planned communication with a potential donor and submit what they plan to say in writing. The state also requires fundraisers to tell donors what percentage of their donation goes to the charitable organization and maintain reports including donor’s  names, addresses, and contribution amounts for DCP inspection.

Civil rights lawyer Alexander Taubes and Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys Daniel Ortner and Jim Manly represented Kissel. In the complaint, Kissel’s attorneys wrote that “the State of Connecticut imposes a series of barriers which restrict both the ability of paid charitable fundraisers to speak freely and the ability of individual donors to give to these organizations anonymously” and “imposes significant costs and substantially chills [Kissel’s] speech.”

Preliminary injunction

On July 21, Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer issued an order partially granting Kissel’s request to temporarily bar the DCP from enforcing the act. The order blocked the 20-day notice requirement, the requirement to submit a transcript of intended solicitations, and the requirement to keep records of donors’ names and donation amounts. However, Meyer did not invalidate the state’s definition of solicitation.

“Because every one of these requirements is predicated on a content-based evaluation of the subject matter of Kissel’s speech, I conclude that they are subject to strict scrutiny and that Kissel has established a strong likelihood of success under the demanding strict scrutiny standard,” Meyer wrote. In his denial of Kissel’s challenge to the statute’s definition of solicitation, Meyer wrote, “I do not agree that the law is vague or overbroad simply because it regulates not only ‘direct’ solicitation activity but also ‘indirect’ solicitation activity.”

Judgement and order

The court released its final judgement in the case on Jan. 19, ruling that the  20-day notice requirement, the requirement to submit a transcript of intended solicitations, and the requirement to disclose donors’ names and donation amounts “violates the First Amendment in its current form.” The court ordered the DCP to cease enforcement of these requirements and to “provide notice to the public on the Department’s website of what statutory requirements will no longer be enforced and shall note that such changes are required by this judgment.” The ruling also required Seagull to compensate Kissel a total of $42,504 in costs and attorneys’ fees.

The ruling does not “prevent Defendant from subpoenaing such materials from an individual paid solicitor in the context of a specific investigation or enforcement action.” The court also clarified that the ruling only prevents the required disclosure of donor information. The ruling does not “obviate a paid solicitor’s obligation to maintain records about any of the information contemplated by § 21a-190f(k), including but not limited to the names and addresses of donors, if known to the solicitor, or to disclose to DCP upon request any of the information contemplated by that provision other than donor names and addresses.” 

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state: We’re currently tracking 92 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure and privacy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Recent legislative actions

For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here. 

  • Illinois HB4927: This bill would prohibit a foreign national from directly or indirectly contributing to a ballot initiative committee or an independent expenditure committee.
    • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
    • Democratic sponsorship
    • This bill was referred to committee on Jan. 27.
  • Indiana SB0134: This bill would require appropriations of any money donation made by a nongovernmental organization to a state agency or local unit of government to be listed in a separate line item in the budget of the state or local unit of government. The budget line item must specify each individual state employee or local government employee whose salary is funded in whole or in part from the donated money.
    • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
    • Republican sponsorship
    • This bill was referred to committee on Jan. 18. 
  • Kentucky HB241: This bill would allow the Transportation Cabinet and the Energy and Environment Cabinet to raise money from a governmental agency, individual, nonprofit organization, or private business for the Adopt-a- Highway Litter Program or other statewide litter programs. These contributions would be treated as restricted funds and would not be subject to state disclosure restrictions. 
    • Primary emphasis: Privacy
    • Republican sponsorship
    • This bill was referred to committee Jan. 27.
  • Maryland HB340: This bill would prohibit a person from running for public office or being the treasurer of a campaign committee if that person has violated campaign disclosure regulations and failed to pay the penalty. The bill would modify penalties for these violations and require prosecution to be instituted within four years of the offense.
    • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
    • Democratic sponsorship
    • This bill was referred to committee on Jan. 19. 
  • Maryland HB344: This bill would prohibit a regulated lobbyist, or a person acting on their behalf, from making a contribution to a candidate for office if the lobbyist is registered to lobby and influence action in the same branch of government to which the candidate is seeking election. It would also prohibit businesses from making contributions if they are working for the state. 
    • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
    • Democratic sponsorship
    • This bill was referred to committee on Jan. 19.
  • Maryland HB490: This bill would prohibit certain sports wagering licensees and certain individuals employed by a sports wagering licensee or video lottery operator from directly or indirectly making contributions to any candidate running for state office.
    • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
    • Democratic sponsorship
    • This bill was referred to committee on Jan. 21.
  • New Mexico HB51: This bill would repeal a statute requiring candidates for the state retirement board to file a report disclosing contributions they received. 
    • Primary emphasis: Privacy
    • Bipartisan sponsorship
    • This bill was introduced on Jan. 18.
  • New Mexico SB74: This bill would require lobbyist organizations to file a report with the secretary of state including the names, addresses, employers and occupations of contributors for all contributions over $2,500 within 48 hours or receiving the contribution. 
    • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
    • Bipartisan sponsorship
    • This bill was introduced on Jan. 19.
  • South Carolina H4877: The bill would prohibit corporations from making contributions to promote or defeat an individual candidate for public office. 
    • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
    • Democratic sponsorship
    • This bill was referred to committee on Jan. 27.
  • Virginia HB492: This bill would require campaign committee treasurers to keep accounts of campaign contributions and expenditures and authorizes the Department of Elections to conduct reviews of a percentage of campaign committees. The Department of Elections would report the results of the reviews to the State Board of Elections, the Governor, and General Assembly and make them available on the Department’s website.
    • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
    • Democratic sponsorship
    • This bill was referred to committee on Jan. 28.
  • Virginia SB318: This bill would broaden the scope of campaign advertisement disclosure requirements to include electioneering communications. It would also require advertisements that are independent expenditures or support the passage or defeat of a referendum to disclose the names of the sponsor’s three largest contributors in a disclaimer.
    • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
    • Democratic sponsorship
    • This bill passed the upper legislative chamber on Jan. 24.
  • West Virginia HB4419: This bill would remove restrictions on candidate and campaign caucus committees’ donations to their affiliated state party executive committees or a caucus campaign committee.
    • Primary emphasis: Privacy
    • Republican sponsorship
    • This bill was referred to committee on Jan. 27.
  • Wyoming HB0049: This bill would increase the penalty for failing to file disclosure reports.
    • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
    • Partisan sponsorship unavailable 
    • This bill was introduced on Jan. 30.