Like them or hate them, Missourians know who's behind political ads and materials. State law says the ads must include the name and address of the person who paid for them.
But a businessman said in a seven-page federal lawsuit filed Wednesday that the "paid for by" requirement violates his free speech right to back a candidate anonymously.
On behalf of the businessman, identified only as "John Doe," the ACLU of Missouri sued the Missouri Ethics Commission and asked the U.S. District Court in Jefferson City to issue a temporary restraining order as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions against the commission from enforcing disclosure requirements against Doe.
The lawsuit identifies Doe "as a resident and businessperson in Ferguson" who "wishes to publish, circulate, and distribute handbills that advocate for the election of one candidate to the Ferguson City Council and against the election of that candidate's opponent."
The suit said Doe is not affiliated with any candidate.
But the plaintiff fears retaliation from Ferguson officials and does not want to include his name or address on the handbills, the lawsuit said.
Even though the election is April 7, the businessman hasn't published or distributed the handbill. The lawsuit calling him "chilled" from doing so because of the current state mandate that "any person publishing, circulating, or distributing any printed material related to a candidate for public office "shall on the face of the printed matter identify in a clear and conspicuous manner the person who paid for the printed matter with the words "Paid for by' followed by (the name and address of the individual paying for the printed matter).'"
Doe and the ACLU noted the law defines "printed matter" as including "any pamphlet, circular, (or) handbill."
Violating the law is a Class A misdemeanor, with a possible fine and no more than one year in jail for a conviction.
Unless the federal court blocks state enforcement of the law, the lawsuit said, "Doe will lose the opportunity to engage in anonymous political speech with regard to the April 7 election for Ferguson City Council."
Additionally, the suit said the plaintiff plans to engage in political speech with handbills in future elections "if he can do so without identifying himself on the printed materials and facing investigation, prosecution, and imposition of a fine, jail sentence, or both."
The lawsuit said the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1995 in the same context of political handbills in an Ohio case.
"An author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the (U.S. Constitution's) First Amendment," the high court said 20 years ago.
Asked if voters have a right to know who's making the claims for one candidate or another, ACLU of Missouri legal director Tony Rothert, replied: "This case is about whether an individual who is producing and distributing his own political handbills has a right to remain anonymous.
"The Supreme Court has unequivocally said that such individuals have the right to remain anonymous, just like James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay did when they published and distributed the Federalist Papers" in 1787 and 1788.
He said the case is not about high-dollar donors or "the anonymity of mass communicators who do not distribute their own printed materials or who communicate other than by handbill."
The attorney general's office and the Ethics Commission did not comment Wednesday on the lawsuit.