Idaho judge rules pro-Prop 1 ads can continue
Published at | Updated at
Mark Dee, Idaho Statesman
BOISE (Idaho Statesman) — Groups supporting Prop 1 can continue to advertise in favor of Idaho’s ballot initiative to expand abortion access after a judge in Ada County blocked a legal push to halt the ads over allegations of campaign finance malfeasance.
RELATED | Opponents sue to block Idaho Democrats’ Prop 1 ads over how they were funded
Judge Davis VanderVelde denied the Idaho Family Policy Center’s attempt to block the television spots through a preliminary injunction, citing “insufficient evidence” that supporters of Prop 1 violated campaign finance law in paying for the ads, and finding that opponents of the ballot measure were not “substantially” likely to win their case should it proceed.
Recorded late Friday night, the ruling backs VanderVelde’s earlier decision to deny a temporary restraining order stopping the ads from hitting the air ahead of the Nov. 3 election.
The decision continues a rapid-fire case brought this week by opponents of Idaho’s abortion ballot initiative alleging that Idahoans United for Women and Families, Prop 1’s main backer, funneled more than $620,000 through the state Democratic Party to receive significant discounts on television ads typically reserved for candidates.
Filed Monday on behalf of the board members of Too Extreme for Idaho PAC, the original complaint accuses Idahoans United for Women and Families, the state Democratic Party and gubernatorial candidate Terri Pickens of improperly 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.
VanderVelde said that the pro-Prop 1 groups appeared to follow finance rules laid out by the Idaho Secretary of State and did not conceal the source of the money, though he acknowledged that new evidence could emerge to support either side going forward.
“There’s no doubt that the Prop 1 campaign and the Idaho Democratic Party gamed the system for one purpose — to obtain an unfair advantage in advertising rates in the final days of this campaign,” Tom Luna, a board member for the anti-Prop 1 group Too Extreme for Idaho and a plaintiff in the case, said in a statement late Friday. “We disagree with the outcome today. But now voters know the truth — and we trust that voters won’t let the Prop 1 campaign get away with it.”
RELATED | Fact check: Are claims about Prop 1’s abortion changes accurate?
Since the lawsuit was filed, Pickens, Idaho Democrats and Idahoans United for Women and Families have called the claim “frivolous.” They maintain that no campaign finance laws were violated.
“Opponents of Proposition 1 asked a court to take political speech they disagree with off the air days before an election,” Idahoans United for Women and Families Executive Director Melanie Folwell said in a text message to the Idaho Statesman on Saturday. “The court refused, on First Amendment grounds. Idahoans deserve a debate where both sides make their case and voters decide. We have made ours, and we will keep making it.”
Friday’s opinion isn’t the final say on the case, which breaks new ground in Idaho campaign finance law. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court removed limits on how much political parties could coordinate with — and spend on — their preferred candidates. But, barring a reversal on Monday, it’s likely the last word on the matter before Election Day, after which attorneys for the plaintiff argued the point would be moot.