SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) – A federal judge has rejected the challenge of advocacy groups who say San Francisco’s requirements for political speech violate the U.S. Constitution.
Those requirements also cause viewers to lose the message, said San Franciscans Supporting Prop B and the Asian Pacific Democratic Club PAC sponsored by Neighbors for a Better San Francisco in a May 11 lawsuit against the city and county.
Political speakers must disclose their top three donors at the beginning of their messages, and if any of those donors are a committee, they must disclose that committee's top two donors as well. All this is required despite having all donor disclosure information available on the internet, the suit says.
"Audio and video advertisements must begin with this information, distracting and driving away listeners before they even hear the speaker's messages," the lawsuit says.
"Contrary to the City's demands, however, the First Amendment leaves speakers the right to decide 'what to say and what to leave unsaid.'"
Judge Charles Breyer disagreed on June 1, rejecting the groups’ motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. He noted the law was passed by nearly 77% of voters and that a “nearly identical” court challenge to it was handled during the 2020 election cycle.
“To challenge the constitutionality of a law, a plaintiff must show a burden,” Breyer wrote. “Plaintiffs here provide only vague supposition.”
The plaintiffs cited the case of Ed Lee Dems, which discloses a main donor is David Chiu for Assembly 2022. Chiu left the Assembly and is now city attorney, so the plaintiffs claim voters are misled into believing Chiu is running for another office and improperly taking positions on city issues.
“Yet this claim of voter confusion is entirely speculative. And because Plaintiffs do not make any showing that information about SPB’s secondary-contributors would mislead voters, the Court has no basis to conclude that the government’s informational interest is at all attenuated – particularly given that 77% of the voters enacted this rule in the first place.”
SPB and its co-plaintiff are appealing the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.