Law That Requires Candidates’ Names in Mailers Upheld

In a ruling that could limit last-minute “smear attacks” during campaigns, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that political candidates and their campaign committees must identify themselves in mailers they send to voters.

In a unanimous decision, the court upheld the constitutionality of a state political reform law that requires such disclosure in mailings of more than 200 advertisements in a calendar month by a candidate or committee.

The ruling comes at a time of widespread consternation over the use of negative literature in high-stakes campaigns. The Fair Political Practices Commission, the state’s political watchdog, receives 20 to 25 complaints during each election season about candidates who fail to identify themselves in mailers.

Most of the violations occur in local elections and result in sanctions, said Darryl East, chief of enforcement for the FPPC. Several pending cases will be affected by the court’s decision, he said.

Justice Joyce Kennard, writing for the court, said the law requiring disclosure by candidates and committees they control “tends to prevent smear attacks” and permits candidates to confront their accusers.

“This is likely to reduce irresponsible attacks on candidates for public office,” Kennard said, “and it will enable the voting public to appraise the source of the attacks, thereby assisting them in giving the attacks the weight they deserve.”

The court ruling came in the case of former Santa Ana Councilman Daniel Griset, who along with two campaign committees was fined a total of $10,000 for sending out five separate mailers in 1988 against an opponent running for the City Council.

At least one of the mailings was sent under the name of the Washington Square Neighborhood Assn. “Prospective voters reading this mass mailing,” Kennard wrote, “may have been deceived into believing that this mailing came from a ‘grass-roots’ group of concerned neighbors, rather than from a candidate for public office.”

Griset won the race, and opponent Richards L. Norton filed a complaint against him with the FPPC. Norton eventually won election to the council in a subsequent race.

Griset appealed the commission’s decision to fine him and his committees. A Court of Appeal in Santa Ana, ruling in his case, upheld the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements for candidates and their committees but struck it down for partisans of ballot measures.

The state high court specifically declined to rule on whether partisans of ballot measures must disclose their identity, nullifying the lower court’s earlier ruling on that provision.

But the U.S. Supreme Court, considering an Ohio case, will rule on the constitutionality of such requirements for ballot measures within the next several months.

At issue in the legal debate is the 1st Amendment, which protects free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that government may not restrict the right to anonymity in speech by requiring disclosure without a substantial justification. The court also has held, however, that the government’s need to protect the integrity of the electoral process may be adequate justification in some instances.

Ruling in the Santa Ana case Monday, the California high court held that the state can require candidates to disclose their names in mailings because California has a compelling interest in ensuring that voters know the source of campaign mailers.

This requirement may deter candidates from making some mass mailings, Kennard acknowledged. But she added that such situations probably will be rare because candidates will want to inform voters of their views to win elections.

Darryl Wold, a Costa Mesa lawyer who represented Griset, said he may appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said it was also possible that the federal high court’s ruling in the Ohio case would overturn the California court’s decision.

“I am disappointed,” Wold said. “We felt that the voters can be entrusted with information from any source, including anonymous sources.”

Griset, an insurance broker, could not be reached for comment. Wold said the campaign mailers, although not properly identified, clearly came from Griset, who was not completely familiar with the state’s disclosure requirements.

Ben Davidian, chairman of the FPPC, said he was “delighted” with the ruling, and Steve Churchwell, the commission’s general counsel, predicted that an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would fail.

Churchwell said the Ohio case before the high court deals with any leaflet from any individual, whereas the California law requires disclosure only for mass mailings.