OPINION: Can a church really funnel dark money into the campaign against Prop 1?
Dark money has become the root of evil in political campaigns across the country. National interest groups seem to be lurking everywhere, seeing where they can influence an election without disclosing their identity. Idaho’s Attorney General may now be inviting dark money into the campaign against Idaho’s Proposition One (Prop 1), the measure to repeal Idaho’s total abortion ban.
Attorney General Labrador has just issued an official opinion concluding that a “nonbusiness entity church” that spends more than $1,000 to oppose Prop 1 “as an exercise of that church’s religious beliefs” does not have to disclose the identity of its donors. That is, the church is exempt from the Sunshine Law’s reporting requirements simply because of some religious objection to abortion. The opinion would allow out-of-state interest groups to funnel tons of money through those churches into the campaign against Prop 1, without voters learning of their identity.
The AG’s opinion runs counter to guidance provided last October by Idaho’s respected Secretary of State, Phil McGrane. There is no legitimate reason to provide a religious exemption from the clearcut reporting requirement of the Sunshine Law because of a church’s position on what is basically a secular matter–voting on a ballot measure regarding women's health care. It is curious that the state can impose an abortion ban on the entire population, if such a ban is primarily a matter of religious beliefs.
Labrador’s opinion hinges on Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act, which is intended to protect a person’s free exercise of religion. That right may not be “substantially” burdened unless the burden is “essential to further a compelling governmental interest” and is the least restrictive means for doing so. His claim that the reporting requirement for anti-abortion churches violates this Act is dead wrong.
The Sunshine Law requires all recipients of political donations to disclose the identity of their donors so as to prevent dark money contributors from corrupting Idaho elections. The reporting requirement applies to all entities that use donor money to influence the vote on political candidates or ballot measures. The requirement is neutral and universally applicable. It does not target religious groups. It does not substantially burden churches that choose to funnel money to political causes. It is the least restrictive means for identifying who is trying to influence elections.
Labrador’s opinion would subvert the very purpose of the Sunshine Act. If an out-of-state interest group wanted to influence elections in Idaho, but wished for any reason to hide their identity, they could either funnel their dark money contributions through an existing church or set up their own to do the job. That would frustrate Idaho’s long-standing policy of shining light upon political contributions and expenditures.
The framers of the Idaho Constitution were cognizant of the danger of intermingling church and state. They sought to separate the two in Article I, section four. That section guarantees the “exercise and enjoyment of religious faith” but prohibits any preference being “given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.”
Labrador failed to consider whether his opinion grants a prohibited preference to some churches by excusing them from the Sunshine Law’s reporting requirement. McGrane should stick with his guidance because the Constitution trumps Labrador’s opinion.
• • •
Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served 8 years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He also publishes at substack.com/@jjcommontater.