This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Three nonprofit organizations sued the Utah Legislature in federal court last week, challenging a bill passed in 2013 that requires nonprofits to disclose their donors if they spend more than $750 a year for political purposes.
Leaders from two of those groups, Connor Boyack, president of Libertas Institute, and Billy Hesterman, vice president of the Utah Taxpayers Association, then penned an op-ed in Sunday's Salt Lake Tribune explaining the rationale for the lawsuit.
They argued that largely educational and informational nonprofits, like theirs, would be compelled to release personal information of their donors if they spend some of their money on political causes — to fight against tax-increase initiatives for example.
When the groups filed the lawsuit, Boyack said if a similar law had been in place in California during the Proposition 8 debate over a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in that state, the LDS Church, which supported a ban, would have been compelled to release the names of all of its tithe payers.
He also noted that if Planned Parenthood weighed in during debates on abortion, it would have to release the identities of its donors, putting them possibly at physical risk.
But a careful reading of House Bill 43, sponsored by House Speaker Greg Hughes, R-Draper, seems to indicate there are protections in place against those extreme examples.
The "definition of donor" section, on lines 111-112, says that a donor, for purposes of being identified, "does not include a person that signs a statement that the corporation may not use the money for … a political issues expenditure."
On lines 452-455, the bill clarifies that the donor "gives the money to the corporation in response to a solicitation indicating the corporation's intent to make a political issues expenditure; or knows that the corporation may use the money to make a political issues expenditure."
On lines 475-477, it says: "if a corporation makes political issues expenditures that total at least $750 during a calendar year, the corporation shall notify a person giving money to the corporation that (a) the corporation may use the money to make a political issues expenditure."
In other words, the bill appears to provide protections for donors who contribute to the educational aspects of the nonprofits as long as they specify their contributions are not to be used for political purposes.
It should be remembered why the bill was introduced and passed in the first place.
It was a response to one of the most egregious and dishonest campaign tactics in recent memory in Utah that was designed to destroy the reputation of a sitting legislator while hiding the contributors who were out to get him and why.
Political operative Jason Powers, a key campaign advisor to the since-indicted former Utah Attorney General John Swallow, set up a phony nonprofit PAC called "The Proper Role of Government Education Association" for the sole purpose of destroying the candidacy of Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, who was running for re-election in 2012.
The PAC spent thousands on propaganda accusing Daw of trying to pass "Obamacare-type" legislation in Utah, of supporting cyberbullying and of trying to let President Obama rewrite the Constitution.
A House investigation of Swallow found that the PAC actually was secretly funded by the payday lending industry to help Swallow, a friend of the payday lenders, and to destroy Daw, who had sponsored legislation to regulate the payday lending industry.
The phony PAC so offended Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, who is the president of the Utah Taxpayer Association, that he and Senate President Wayne Niederhauser paid for a video placed on YouTube denouncing the tactics.
If the lawsuit, brought by Stephenson's organization, is successful, it opens the door for the tactic that so offended the senator to be used again.
In their op-ed, Boyack and Hesterman say that when such political trickery is employed, those involved can be indicted under existing state and federal laws for fraud.
But Powers, the mastermind behind the phony PAC designed to derail Daw, has not been charged with anything.
It might be wise to bring the bill up during the 2016 legislative session for some tweaking to address the concerns raised by Boyack and Hesterman, but throwing out the bill entirely opens the door to more abuse.