‘Likely that potential donors will refuse to contribute’

Delaware enacted the law in question in 2012 in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, which permitted corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections.

The lawsuit targets the provision in the Delaware code that requires third-party advertisers who engage in so-called “electioneering communications” — which name a candidate but don’t explicitly say who to vote for or against — to file reports if they spend more than $500 in an election cycle.

The groups must first register as a political committee and list names and addresses of each officer, as well “a concise statement of the committee’s purposes or goals,” and the name, office sought and party affiliation of candidates they are supporting or opposing, “to the extent such information is known as of the date of filing.”

During the campaign season, the groups also need to file reports listing the name and mailing address of anyone contributing more than $100, regardless of whether the person earmarked their money for a Delaware race or even knows about the campaign ads in Delaware. The report must contain the total amount that every donor made during the relevant election cycle.

The law has a $1,200 minimum threshold for reporting donations by any contributor that is not an individual.

While the lawsuit centers on disclosing individual donors, the roughly 60 third-party advertisers now registered in Delaware report contributions from affiliated organizations rather than naming individual people, a WHYY News review of filings found.

For example, the American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware Action Fund listed $70,000 in donations from the American Civil Liberties Union, listing a New York address for the donors.

Another group, the National Resources Defense Council lists one donation — $100,000 in 2024 from the NRDC Action Votes Federal PAC in New York. During that race, the group advocated for unsuccessful Democratic gubernatorial candidate Collin O’Mara.

Regardless of whether third-party advertisers are naming individual people as donors, Americans for Prosperity argues in the lawsuit that the names of “thousands of donors” who have given its two groups more than $100 since 2022 would have to be disclosed.

Citing the law, the lawsuit said that failing to comply comes with a possible “penalty of perjury” and fines of $50 a day and perhaps referral to prosecutors for not filing the reports, which is a misdemeanor criminal offense.

Such disclosures would harm Americans for Prosperity, the lawsuit argues, because “the vast majority of donors require confidentiality as a condition of their giving.”

Unless the law changes or is overturned in court, the lawsuit claims that Americans for Prosperity could jeopardize its funding stream if it engages in third-party advertising in Delaware.

“It is likely that potential donors will refuse to contribute, and current donors will cease to contribute, because they are too fearful of the reprisal they will face if their names and addresses are disclosed,” the lawsuit said.

Connolly elaborated.

“This is a fundamental, foundational American principle that you should be able to give to causes without fear, whether you give $100 or $1,000 or more,’’ he said. “Everybody should be treated equally and protected equally to engage in the political process as they see fit and not not fear attacks on their families and their businesses.”

Marshall countered that third-party advertisers don’t deserve special privileges.

“The idea is that our elections are sacrosanct and that we ought to be able to at least see who is influencing them,” Marshall said. “The idea that we should have special rules when it’s a third party that’s really set up in practice to funnel extremely wealthy people’s resources in one or a few massive bundles of money, that we should treat that more gingerly than we treat the donation of an accountant who lives in Newark to their local state rep candidate, just feels outrageous.”

Dover, Del. – Health officials, advocates and legislators met in front of Legislative Hall to raise awareness for public health issues being brought up at the state level on Wednesday for the first Delaware Public Health Advocacy Day.

The event, organized by Delaware HIV Consortium, focused on advancing public health policy to increase health equity as speakers advocated for more public health funding and support. ​

“Public health impacts all of the communities across our state. Public health is the first step of keeping people healthy,” Delaware HIV Consortium Executive Director Tyler Berl said. “And frankly, it’s the cheapest way to keep people healthy and thriving across our state.”

Peggy Geisler, CEO for Sussex County Health Coalition CEO and one of the speakers at the event, stressed the importance of funding for preventative healthcare. Especially, she said, in times of widespread disinformation.

“It’s so important right now is because population health, is under fire nationally,” she said. “I think what’s happening to undermine credible science and actual programming that keeps people like you, me and everyone else safe is a travesty. And I think we in our own state can do something about that.”

Brandywine Counseling and Community Services CEO and President Lynn Morrison was also a speaker and said it was important to make public health a top-of-mind issue with legislators at a time when the federal government has reduced funding after the COVID-19 pandemic.

“If there aren’t additional resources put towards public health, then organizations and programs will surely not be able to continue,” she said.

State officials at the event stressed that health care, while lifesaving, is just one of the many ways to keep communities safe and prosperous.

Secretary of the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, Christen Linke Young, was also a speaker and said that access to healthy food, adequate housing, mental health services and community supports were just as essential to building healthy communities.

“That’s what public health is, and that’s what we’re celebrating today, the community institutions that work day in and day out to serve communities and build a spirit of public health,” Linke Young said.

4-minute read

Mike Purzycki died Tuesday, May 19 at 80. The public record of his life — the Riverfront, the mayoralty, the housing reforms, the man who turned an industrial wasteland into a regional destination — is real and earned. We read it Tuesday morning. We recognize the city Purzycki helped to build.

There is another piece of Purzycki’s life, less public and to us no less important, that the three of us are uniquely positioned to tell. I, Tony Allen, served as the founding chair of the Wilmington HOPE Commission, and Mike served as my co-chair throughout my tenure. With first Provey Powell and then Charles A. Madden as our executive director, and Wolfie Chambers as one of our most important volunteers and advisors — now one of the nation’s leading voices on second chances and gun violence prevention — we built something together that does not appear in the public chronology of Purzycki’s life. The moment of his passing is the right moment to name it.

We come to this tribute from three vantage points: a returning citizen turned national advocate, the executive director who ran the institution day to day, and the co-chair who sat with Purzycki at a round table, grappling with the difficult topics that carried their own advocates and opponents on every side — race, community, crime, brokenness, repair and whole cloth reform — we dealt with it all and then went about the business of trying to do something about it. The relationship the three of us had with Purzycki was an argument we kept choosing to have in the same room. He pushed us. We pushed him. Individually, we all held positions about structural injustice that sometimes made each of us bristle, one to another. Regardless of what side we landed, no one flinched. That is what made the work real, and what makes this tribute possible.

We want to honor Purzycki honestly. He was not a man so certain about Black people that he believed he knew what was best for us. He would have been the first to reject that framing on its facing, noting first that no group of people is a monolith, nor is one group superior in their judgement of another. It was the systems that created the circumstances, a point we all regularly rallied around. Purzycki was our ally — and on some days, our co-conspirator in a fight no one in his world was asking him to take up.