PHOENIX - Two groups that support Republicans are making a last-ditch effort to have the Arizona Supreme Court kill campaign finance requirements that voters have approved.

And the goal of their legal effort is to let them keep secret who really is funding their efforts to influence elections.

Lawyers for the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and the Center for Arizona Policy argue Proposition 211, adopted by voters in 2022, violates the free speech clause in the state constitution. That's because they say it strips from Arizonans the right to make anonymous donations to organizations like theirs - organizations that have been spending money on campaigns to get certain candidates elected and get various ballot measures approved or rejected.

The result of disclosure, according to lead attorney Andrew Gould, can lead to retaliation, intimidation and "doxing'' of both individual donors and the groups to whom they are giving.

Gould also said the measure is overbroad and unconstitutionally vague.

The arguments aren't new. In fact, they were presented to - and already rejected by - both Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott McCoy as well as the state Court of Appeals.

Now, the two groups are hoping the Supreme Court is more receptive.

Arizona has had campaign finance laws since the first days of statehood. Candidates are required to list who has contributed to them and where they are spending their money

But supporters of Proposition 211 argued that there was a gap.

One is in the practice of "independent expenditures,'' which occurs when a group is formed to spend money to influence a candidate race.

Those expenses must be reported.

What had occurred, however, is that the required financial disclosure showed only the name of the group spending the cash. But that didn't provide the public with any meaningful information, including who formed the group and who was providing the actual dollars.

Prop 211 was designed to provide that information.

Approved by voters in 2022 by a nearly 3-1 margin, the initiative says that any organization that spends more than $50,000 on a statewide race - half that for other contests - has to publicly disclose anyone who has given at least $5,000.

It also is designed to cut through what could be considered laundering.

The law requires the group spending the money to detail not just who it received it from, but who gave the money to that entity. And that goes all the way back to whoever has put in at least $2,500.

It also is about more than public reports. Under Prop 211, the names of the top three donors to any group that is spending money to influence elections must be included on all public advertising and other communications.

What all that means to the Free Enterprise Club and CAP, said Gould, is they must either disclose the names of their donors or, in the alternative, "self-censor their speech.''

"And based on Prop 211's disclosure requirements, both CAP and Free Enterprise face the real possibility of retaliation, threats, violence, loss of economic opportunities, and diminished social standing,'' he wrote - all issues he contends were improperly brushed aside by lower courts.

Gould is telling the Supreme Court there is "uncontroverted evidence'' showing CAP has received threatening and harassing communications, like, "Sooner or later you will die and some of us pray it is sooner'' and "You are a cancer that will soon be sliced out of our nation's sick body. I will make it my personal mission to bury every single one of you.''

But appellate Judge Jennifer Campbell who reviewed the evidence and rejected the challenge to the law, said that there were only a "handful of harassing communications'' received by each group.

And the appellate court said the fact that CAP hired private security in anticipation of protests does not entitle it to protect the source of its funds because the protesters had not harassed or threatened CAP staff or caused any property damage.

Ultimately the legal question the Supreme Court needs to decide comes down to two things: whether the disclosure requirements violate free speech rights, and whether they are narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate governmental interest even if they do impinge on individual rights.

On X, Bluesky and Threads: @azcapmedia

We’d like to invite our readers to submit their civil comments on this issue. Email AZOpinions@iniusa.org.