(The Center Square) – A new study on state laws that regulate political speech argues Illinois could do better in some key areas.
According to the Institute for Free Speech, which produced the report, “The Free Speech Index” examines how well each state supports the free speech and association rights of individuals and groups interested in speaking about candidates, issues of public policy, and their government.
“How much burden does the state put on groups that want a forum to talk about issues?” said Scott Blackburn, research director at the Institute for Free Speech. “How much burden does the state put on campaigns? Does it try and prohibit different avenues of speech and different timing of speech?”
Illinois ranks 24th in the report, behind all of its Midwest neighbors. Wisconsin received top marks overall, while Michigan and Iowa followed close behind.
The report argues Illinois has a very broad definition of a “political expenditure,” which could lead to residents running afoul of the laws without knowing it. The language includes explicitly political acts but then also covers any question of public policy.
“What happens in Illinois is that unbeknownst to a lot of people, they might run a half-dozen Facebook ads saying, ‘I think this ballot measure is really important,’ or my group wants to advocate for criminal justice reform,” Blackburn said. “Then all of a sudden they have state regulators writing them threatening letters, fining them thousands of dollars, because that is a question of public policy.”
The Institute ranked the states in ten categories including issues involving lobbying, electioneering, coordination, and campaign finance.
Blackburn said Illinois also falters by not allowing more donors to remain private.
“Their thresholds for disclosure are very low, meaning a very low standard for when someone’s private giving switches over into information that’s available to the public,” Blackburn said. “The Institute’s general position is that private giving for private speech is an important part of sort of the democratic fabric of how the nation works.”
“They don’t have some of the obviously unconstitutional statutes on their books,” Blackburn said. “Things like [bans on] forming a superPAC. They don’t have any particularly onerous false statement laws.”
Blackburn says many restrictions intended as “good government” reforms often have the effect of chilling political speech by normal citizens.
“One of the things we hope the index does, and we hope people take away from it is these laws really do impact real people when it comes to their political speech rates,” Blackburn said. “A lot of our clients at the Institute are people who had no idea they were going to be affected by these political speech laws.”
Among the suggestions offered by the Institute for Free Speech are that state legislatures eliminate donor reporting for groups whose main purpose is not campaign speech, raise thresholds for all donor reporting, and do away with employer disclosure requirements.
New York, Connecticut, and Washington performed the worst in the study.