Orem council debates donor disclosure for 501(c)(4) groups; staff recommends state-level approach

City staff and the city attorney briefed the council on legal approaches other states have taken to require donor disclosure in certain circumstances that catch 501(c)(4) organizations — groups sometimes labeled "dark money" in public discussions. The city attorney said he had identified at least seven states with campaign‑finance rules that can require disclosure when certain expenditure or timing thresholds are met and noted recent court rulings in the Tenth Circuit bearing on the issue.

The attorney summarized common features of those state rules: expenditures that qualify are typically electioneering communications aimed at the general public within a defined pre‑election window; thresholds for triggering disclosure vary (the attorney cited donor thresholds ranging from a few hundred dollars to several thousand); and a common exception is that donations designated to a segregated, non‑political account need not be disclosed. He cautioned that court decisions have split, with some disclosure laws upheld and others struck down, and that the Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in a New Mexico case makes disclosure requirements more defensible in this circuit than in some others — but not "ironclad."

Council members expressed differing views. Some argued the better venue for broad disclosure requirements is at the state level and that litigation risk favors a statewide approach. Others said they wanted a prompt, local transparency measure and proposed a simple checkbox on candidate filing forms where candidates could indicate "yes," "no," or "I don't know" in response to whether a 501(c)(4) had spent money to affect their campaign. Supporters framed that as a limited, informational disclosure that would not require the city to draft complex new campaign‑finance law; some council members called it a reasonable stopgap while broader state policy evolves.

Multiple council members raised concerns about fairness and enforcement: candidates may lack knowledge about independent expenditures carried out by outside groups and could check "I don't know;" others questioned whether a checkbox would create a false sense of transparency. Several council members emphasized that local candidates already must disclose direct contributions and in‑kind donations; staff explained that independent expenditures by 501(c)(4)s are treated differently by federal tax and campaign finance rules.

At the conclusion of the debate, council members asked staff to place a draft disclosure checkbox and associated language on the next city council agenda so the full council can consider whether to adopt it or refer the matter to the state. Staff said they would draft sample language and return the item to the council for a formal vote at a future meeting.

Ending: The council did not adopt a new local disclosure ordinance on the spot. The city attorney recommended the state as the proper forum for a robust, defensible donor‑disclosure regime, and the council directed staff to put a local checkbox option on the next agenda so members can consider a short, informational disclosure requirement.