I am counsel in a MT case seeking to hold void a Nov. 2001 city
election.  Our claim relies on a state statute that permits an election
to be voided if "the violation of any election law probably affected the
outcome of the election," and on a provision of the Montana constitution
that requires the Legislature to "insure the purity of elections and
guard against abuses of the election process."  Our case effectively
represents the first time that either of these laws have been applied.

The violations here stem from a local political committee (approx. 20
business owners) that expressly endorsed three candidates (all of whom
won office) and lobbied against two of the incumbents.  The committee's
campaign efforts involved a last miute ambush of extensive advertising
and door-to-door work in the last four days of the election.  Contrary
to Montana's election law, however, the committee made none of the
required discolsures (deadline was approx 10 days before committee's
public activities; triggering conduct engaged well before deadline)
regarding the committee's officers, purposes, contributors, or
expenditures, which would have alerted the public and incumbents of the
potential threat and provided them an opportunity to respond to the
forthcoming attacks.  In fact, after inquiring with the State Comm'r on
Political Practices and receiving the deadlines and required disclosure
forms, the committee's treasurer decided that "it was too complicated,"
put the forms in a drawer, and proceeded in the committee's campaign
activities.

Our claim requires proof that failure to disclose, as opposed to merely
the committee's activities, probably affected the outcome of the
election.  Both the judge and the defendants in this case are already
retorting: "What difference does failure to file a piece of paper make
in who got elected?"  Especially in light of the independent campaigns
that the successful candidates ran, there is a real need to counter this
perception that failure to disclose is somehow a minor violation in
comparison to stuffing ballot boxes, denying voters access, coercion,
etc.

I put this out to the listserv:  Does anyone have any support (studies,
caselaw, campaign research, etc.) for the principle that specifically
disclosure, in and of itself, is a significant factor in election
outcomes?  I have some wonderful language from various state laws and
cases to the effect that disclosure is the cornerstone of any campaign
finance law, and regarding the important purposes that disclosure
serves.  In addition, however, I'd like to identify, to the extent that
it exists in some form, an objective basis for asserting that
disclosure, or the lack thereof, can actually affect election outcomes.

I welcome any thoughts that someone can offer.  Thanks for the
assistance.

John F. Lacey, Esq.