BY QUINN HUMPHREY
STAFF WRITER
THE CAPITAL NEWS SERVICE
A bill that would raise the civil penalty for violating political campaign advertisement disclosure laws against a clearly identified candidate unanimously passed the Senate 98-0 on March 2.
HB 125, introduced by Del. Glenn Davis, R-Virginia Beach, will raise the penalty for violating campaign disclosure laws from a maximum of $2,500 up to a maximum of $25,000. The bill passed the House vote on Feb. 3, 100-0. The Senate Privileges and Election Committee passed the bill with a 14-0 vote with one abstention on March 1.
When speaking to the Senate Privileges and Election Committee, Davis discussed the minimal effect the current fine has on deterring attack advertisements without candidate disclosure. Davis also described the deliberate business decision, especially from political consultants, to omit disclosure based on the minuscule penalty for doing so.
“They can take a huge hit without any fallout,” Davis said. “We’re going to raise it to $10,000 and if that doesn’t work, then we’ll see what comes next. Consultants need to have a bigger penalty before they violate the law.”
During committee deliberations, senators expressed their concerns over potentially regulating political free speech and the enforcement of this fine. Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Mount Vernon, specifically cited the complexity of imposing this fine and the potential for future restrictions.
“First Amendment political speech is one of the most highly protected constitutional zones
that exist in our society,” Surovell said. “It’s a whole different planet when you regulate what comes out of somebody’s mouth, and it gets even hotter when you regulate it and it comes to politics.”
Surovell explained to the committee that the regulation of political speech must be clearly defined so that any person or party knows where the line is before they cross it, he said.
However, Sen. Mark Peake, R-Lynchburg, offered a dissenting opinion to Surovell. To Peake, this bill simply increases the fine for violation of campaign advertisement disclosure laws.
“I just don’t see that this is regulating political speech at all,” Peake said. “It changes the penalties but it is not regulating the speech at all. This simply increases the penalty and I don’t see how it brings in any new constitutional issues.”
Sen. Lionell Spruill, D-Chesapeake, agreed, arguing that the bill needed “teeth,” otherwise it was a waste of time, he said.
Yet, the committee, who spent over an hour deliberating the bill, did not initially understand Sen. Surovell’s First Amendment concerns. Sen. Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond, clarified the issue by defining speech content discrimination and the specific language that prompted the discussion.
“By treating advertisements expressly advocating against a candidate that violate the law differently from advertisements that expressly advocate in favor of a candidate, that by definition is regulating content of political speech differently,” McClellan said.
If the point here is we want a different penalty for someone who violates the law and we’re treating them the same whether it’s a negative or positive ad, that is fine but that is not what this does.”
McClellan’s amendment to the bill changed the language to apply to both positive and negative political advertisements omitting candidate disclosure. However, the bill and subsequent penalties would only be applied to advertisements expressly advocating for the defeat of a clearly identified candidate.