Connerly: ACRC Statement Regarding Lawsuit Demanding Non-Enforceable Disclosure of Donors

The FPPC has not yet acted on the Proposition 54 complaint, which was filed by California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of California, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Greenlining Institute, Californians for Justice and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.

The American Civil Rights Coalition (ACRC) was established in January 1997 in the District of Columbia as a national not-for-profit organization to promote the principles of equal treatment under the law throughout America. ACRC was established as a 501 (c)(4) corporation and is governed by that section of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributors and supporters of ACRC have certain constitutional rights and ACRC, as a lawful not-for-profit organization, has certain rights as well. Among those rights is the First Amendment protection of Freedom of Association without fear of harassment or reprisal from those who might disagree with one’s views. Under those protections, ACRC solicits contributions from donors throughout the nation who share an interest in pursuing ACRC’s objectives. ACRC was not established exclusively to support California ballot initiatives although it is free to support such measures.

Over the last several years, ACRC has been actively involved in legal challenges or ballot initiative issues in the states of Washington, Texas, Florida, Hawaii, Colorado, Arizona, California and Michigan. Anyone contributing to ACRC knew their contribution would be used at the sole discretion of ACRC, and no donor would have any ability to influence or alter ACRC’s actions.

The FPPC’s complaint against ACRC is clearly political in nature and is being pursued in an unprecedented and discriminatory fashion crafted uniquely against ACRC. We note that our attorneys, even as they were being served today with the FPPC’s complaint, were being told simultaneously by the FPPC on another matter that Lt. Governor Bustamante’s laundering of Indian gaming money through his old committee account would not be investigated because the FPPC does not initiate investigations just prior to elections. The FPPC’s conduct in that regard is clearly discriminatory, partisan and outrageous. We also wonder why the FPPC is not demanding disclosure by other non-profit entities that are contributing to the anti Proposition 54 committee, like the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, the ACLU and the American Cancer Society, to name a few.

It is our belief, on advice of counsel, that the Political Reform Act is vague and ambiguous on this point and that requiring disclosure of ACRC donors’ identities would subject those donors to harassment and economic reprisal by those who oppose the activities of ACRC. Just such harassment and reprisals were visited upon Ward Connerly and contributors during the course of the Proposition 209 campaign. These are the reasons that ACRC refuses to comply with what we consider to be an unconstitutional law that would only serve to deprive our donors of their due process and First Amendment associational and privacy rights.

Again, and most importantly, all contributions to the Yes on Proposition 54/Racial Privacy Initiative Committee have been fully disclosed.

By Jim Sanders -- Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Monday, August 18, 2003

and this...

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/archives/000522.html

California Insider

A Weblog by Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub

« Political day-traders turning bullish on Cruz |

September 03, 2003

FPPC sues Connerly

The Fair Political Practices Commission has filed suit today against Ward Connerly and the American Civil Rights Coalition seeking to force Connerly to disclose the source of nearly $2 million in contributions toward his campaign for Proposition 54, the racial privacy initiative. According to the commission, this is the first time the FPPC has ever filed suit to force disclosure of campaign contributions before an election. Here is the FPPC press release on the matter.

Posted by dweintraub at September 3, 2003 03:25 PM

http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=48&show=detail&prid=513

Press Releases

For Immediate Release: September 3, 2003

Contact: Sigrid Bathen FPPC Media Director, Telephone: 1-916-322-7761, Fax: 1-916-322-4236, Email: sbathen@fppc.ca.gov

Web Site: http://www.fppc.ca.gov

Commission sues to compel Prop. 54 disclosure

Asks court to order Connerly organization to disclose contributors

The Fair Political Practices Commission today (Sept. 3) filed a civil complaint and motion for preliminary injunction against the American Civil Rights Coalition (ACRC) and its CEO, Ward Connerly, in Sacramento Superior Court. The suit alleges ACRC and Connerly have violated state campaign disclosure laws by failing to file campaign statements reporting the source of almost $2 million contributed to promote the passage of Proposition 54 on the Oct. 7 ballot.

The motion for preliminary injunction seeks an order from the court requiring ACRC and Connerly to disclose the information prior to the election. A hearing has been scheduled for 9 a.m. Sept. 26 before Sacramento Superior Court Judge Thomas M. Cecil.

The FPPC contends that ACRC has contributed more than $1.9 million to the Proposition 54 committee since 2001 - or approximately 88 percent of all of the contributions received by the committee. Based on information the commission received from Connerly, the FPPC contends ACRC received the contributions from various donors. The organization is then required by the Political Reform Act to disclose in regularly filed campaign statements the identities of those donors. However, ACRC and Connerly have refused to file statements disclosing these contributors, leaving voters without any information about who is financing the campaign to win passage of the initative.

"Timely disclosure is the backbone of the Political Reform Act," said Commission Chair Liane Randolph. "Voters have a basic right to know who is funding political campaigns. They are entitled to this information in order to make well-informed decisions at the polls."

Steven Russo, chief of the FPPC's Enforcement Division, said ACRC and Connerly "have left us with no other option than to file suit to compel their compliance with the law. We had hoped that they would voluntarily comply with their disclosure requirements, but they simply have not done so.

We will now act through the courts to try to ensure that voters receive the information to which they are entitled."

This is the first time the FPPC has ever filed suit before an election to require campaign disclosure. The matter was originally brought to the attention of the FPPC in a complaint filed July 2, 2002, by California Common Cause and other organizations. The complainants filed a Demand for Civil Action with the FPPC on Aug. 19, 2003. The matter has been under investigation by the FPPC since the filing of the original complaint.

The complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, and supporting points and authorities are attached, and are available on the FPPC Web site at www.fppc.ca.gov. Go to Litigation on the left side of the home page.

An administrative settlement - called a stipulation - is the FPPC's most common method of prosecuting enforcement actions, with a maximum penalty of $5,000 for each violation. The commission is also empowered under the Political Reform Act to file civil suits, with penalties ranging up to the amount not properly reported.

end

You are quite right. Check out the following article from 1997:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:nh-PGcSvdZwJ:www.citypaper.net/articles/061997/article011.shtml+Philadelphia+FOP+and+ACLU+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

June 19–26, 1997

city beat

Top FOP Cop Won't Stop ACLU Bop Show me the money, says police union head.

By Frank Lewis

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Philadelphia Lodge 5 and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Pennsylvania (ACLU) are clashing over accountability. This time, however, it's the FOP that's demanding answers, and the ACLU that seems reluctant to provide them.

Last month, FOP President Richard Costello wrote to local ACLU Foundation Executive Director Larry Frankel, "requesting to examine all records of contributions to your organization for the past five years." Costello explained that his interest stems from his belief that "numerous individuals have contributed to your organization for the sole and exclusive purpose of weakening the strength and responsiveness of the Philadelphia Police Department..."

The ACLU's response was not enthusiastic. "I was basically told to go screw myself," Costello says.

Frankel turned the matter over to attorney David Rudovsky, who tersely suggested in his own letter that Costello check with the Pennsylvania Department of State.

"The information on file with the Department of State is all that the American Civil Liberties Foundation of Pennsylvania is required to disclose," Rudovsky wrote.

Technically, he's right, according to Dan Langan, director of public information for the National Charities Information Board, a Washington, DC-based watchdog of charitable and nonprofit organizations. Lists of donors are not considered public record, so organizations are not required to share them. They certainly can choose to, however, and Langan says many do.

What Rudovsky failed to mention, however, is that Costello, or anyone else who's interested in the ACLU's form 990 PF (for "private foundation") can request a copy, for a minimal photocopying charge, at the ACLU's office during normal business hours. This, says Langan, is mandated by the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, signed last year by President Clinton. Any organization refusing to comply can be fined.

These documents won't include a list of ACLU contributors, which is what Costello asked to see. But Costello feels Rudovsky is playing games with him by attempting to imply that the ACLU need not show the FOP anything.

"The hypocrisy meter starts banging on red," he says, when an organization like the ACLU brushes off what he considers a simple and reasonable request for disclosure.

"When the [Police] Department in the past has opposed their requests for files, their question [has been], 'What are they hiding?'"

"Now I want to know what they're hiding, and I want some answers."

Frankel referred City Paper's call to Rudovsky, who said, "We don't think the law requires [compliance with Costello's request]... Whatever we're required to file, we file."

But Costello says he'll sic the FOP's attorneys on the ACLU before turning to the Department of State. "I asked [the ACLU]," he says, "and I don't understand why I was diverted."

So what's he looking for, anyway? Costello says numerous police department applicants have complained to the FOP of discrimination, and that the union has referred them to the ACLU (the FOP cannot handle such claims). "Invariably," he says, these applicants have called back to say "the ACLU won't touch" their complaints.

Frankel could recall no such responses. Anyone contacting the ACLU with employment discrimination claims, he says, is referred to the proper agency, and told to call back if and when the matter goes to court.

Costello contends, however, that these alleged rebuffs of prospective cops, coupled with the ACLU's frequent involvement in police-accountability issues, indicate an anti-law-enforcement agenda, which may result from donations from individuals, groups or businesses with something to gain by tightening the leash on cops.

"If my suspicions are groundless, I'd think they'd be the first ones to say, 'C'mon in, we'll show you,'" Costello says. "The facts are in their possession. They can prove me wrong or they can prove me right."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.