Opponents sue to block Idaho Democrats’ Prop 1 ads over how they were funded

BOISE(Idaho Statesman) — Opponents of Idaho’s abortion ballot initiative are suing Prop 1’s main support committee, alleging that it funneled more than $620,000 through the state Democratic Party to receive discounts on television ads typically reserved for candidates.

Filed Monday on behalf of the board members of Too Extreme for Idaho PAC, the complaint accuses Idahoans United for Women and Families, the state Democratic Party and gubernatorial candidate Terri Pickens of routing money through the party to run ads at candidate rates while masking who was actually paying for the campaign. Federal law requires stations to charge candidates their lowest rate in the run-up to elections —- a carve-out not extended to independent groups advocating for or against specific issues.

By allegedly disguising an issue ad as an advertisement for Pickens, Idahoans United for Women and Families saved “up to 70%” off the retail rates, according to Mary Strow, a spokesperson for Stop Prop 1, an outreach group funded by Too Extreme for Idaho PAC.

In response, Idaho Democratic Party spokesperson Avery Roberts dismissed the lawsuit as “frivolous,” stating that the expenditures were fully compliant with campaign finance laws, properly reported to the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office and conducted in consultation with legal counsel.

“This frivolous lawsuit is another attempt by opponents of Prop 1 to distract from the devastating consequences of Idaho’s extreme abortion ban,” she said in a statement Monday. “Women are being forced to leave the state for lifesaving medical care, and the politicians responsible have done nothing to fix it. Instead of addressing the harm this ban has caused, opponents are trying to silence the families speaking out, even after the Secretary of State’s Office confirmed our advertising complies with Idaho campaign finance laws.”

The suit, filed in Third District Court in Canyon County, is the latest confrontation in a bitter battle over Prop 1, a ballot measure that would unwind provisions of Idaho’s abortion ban, one of the strictest in the nation, and cement protections for reproductive healthcare.

With eight days until Election Day, Too Extreme For Idaho asked for an injunction requiring the Democrats to pull the ad, blocking them from advertising at the lower candidate rate, and forcing them to return the remaining money to Idahoans United.

“Pro-abortion activists cheated their way into cheaper television advertisements to stump for their radical abortion ballot initiative,” Too Extreme for Idaho board member Blaine Conzatti said in a written statement.

The PAC is also asking Secretary of State Phil McGrane to investigate whether Idahoans United’s contribution violated state campaign finance laws.

That contribution is at the core of the case. Idahoans United for Women and Families gave the party $620,500 through a pair of donations in October, campaign finance records show. The Idaho Democratic Party reported spending $371,246 on Oct. 20 for broadcast television advertising in support of Prop 1. Those ads said they were paid for by the Idaho Democrats and “authorized” by Pickens, but did not mention Idahoans United.

The ads did run at lower rates than comparable spots paid for by Too Extreme for Idaho, according to Federal Communications Commission filings examined by the Statesman.

To the Idaho Family Policy Center, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Too Extreme for Idaho’s board, that constituted “an eleventh-hour effort to launder money” to support the abortion measure, according to IFPC’s press release announcing the lawsuit.

“The complaint filed today explains how Idahoans United for Women and Families lied to the television stations about who funded their Proposition 1 campaign ads for the purpose of obtaining an illegal and unfair advantage over the Stop Prop 1 campaign,” Idaho Family Policy Center spokesperson Edward Clark wrote in the press release.

In an interview with the Statesman, Pickens said that she “had not paid anything for Prop 1.” Support for the measure, though, is a pillar of her campaign, she said.

“No money was funneled to me. Zero,” she said. “They asked me if I would take a stance, and I said, ‘Yes.’ I’m a public ‘Yes’ on Prop 1. … That was the whole point.”

Joe Parris, a spokesman for the Secretary of State’s Office, told the Statesman that McGrane’s campaign finance team reviewed the contribution to the state Democrats from Idahoans United and “found that the paperwork and records were filed correctly.”

“There is no violation in terms of the amount contributed,” he said in an email. “An issue PAC like Idahoans United can contribute unlimited funds to a political party.”

And, as of this year, there’s no limit on how parties can legally coordinate with —- and spend on —- their candidates. In June, a 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court struck down those limits in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, finding that restrictions on spending for political communication violated the First Amendment.

The Nov. 3 midterms are the first major election since that decision, meaning these are the first races in decades in which money spent by a party on behalf of the candidate are not counted as contributions to that candidate, McGrane wrote in a Sept. 11 memo on campaign finance guidance provided to the Statesman by Roberts, the Democratic spokesperson.

Less clear is whether the federally mandated ad rate should apply. That’s an issue for the Federal Communications Commission, Parris said.

As of Monday afternoon, the FCC had not responded to a request for comment.