The lawsuit, which also names City Clerk Valeria Skitt as a defendant, attacks the law’s reporting requirements for “individual expenditures” — money that’s spent to promote a candidate, without the candidate’s advice or permission. The law says that all such spending of $100 or more must be reported to the city clerk and all candidates in the affected race within 72 hours.

Former mayor Bob Askey of the Longmont Leadership Committee, one of the plaintiffs, said the reporting threshold was far too low.

“Should there be a threshold? That’s a question I can’t answer,” he said. “Is $100 a fair threshold? That I can answer — and the answer is no.”

The suit, filed Friday, is also being brought by Longmont Area Realtors, the Western Tradition Partnership, former mayor Julia Pirnack and blogger Chris Rodriguez.

Learning the rules

The city adopted its new campaign finance rules in March. Those rules set the first-ever contribution limits on Longmont City Council races — $200 for an individual, $500 for an organization — and tightened the old $1,000 reporting threshold for individuals promoting a candidate independently, knocking it down to $100.

“They can spend as much as they want, as long as they report what they spend when it reaches the $100 threshold,” Skitt said of the individual expenditures.

People who fail to report that spending can be fined $200 a day for up to 10 days or until a report is filed, whichever comes first. The ad, mailing or other message must say who’s paying for it, how much, and that it wasn’t authorized by any candidate.

Chris Colelli, who served on the task force that helped create the new rules, said the idea was to keep voters informed.

“I think there’s a perceived complexity that’s not there,” Colelli said. “Transparency is really all the task force was looking for.”

A reminder of those rules ran in the August “City Line” newsletter, sent out with the city’s utility bills. The article, titled “Don’t Get Fined For Your Political Views,” urged residents to file a report with the city clerk if if they spent $100 or more on “electioneering communications.”

Under the law, that covers any message sent to voters within 90 days of an election that advocates for or against a specific candidate or issue. This does not include items such as news commentary, letters to the editor, or normal family and business communication.

But the people bringing the suit called the rules too restrictive and the definition of “electioneering communications” too vague.

“It’s pretty unclear what you can or can’t do without going to the clerk,” Pirnack said.

What can we do?

Pirnack said she had planned to put out a message saying the powers of the mayor’s office needed to be changed, making the mayor an executive officer instead of “first among equals.” She said she doesn’t intend to campaign for anyone in particular but that her message would refer to several candidates and officeholders in order to make her argument, along with policy stances taken by the mayor.

“Now I’m not entirely sure whether I can do that,” Pirnack said. “I shouldn’t have to jump through all these series of hoops to have a policy discussion.”

The Western Tradition Partnership took a similar position. In the suit, the group said it wanted to spend money to “discuss public policy issues affecting Longmont voters” and that it would praise or criticize candidates’ positions on those issues without actually urging residents to vote for or against a candidate.

“Neither WTP nor Pirnack will make their communications due to the burdens imposed by the (law) and the City’s threat of prosecution,” the suit said.

Rodriguez, the Longmont Association of Realtors and the Longmont Leadership Committee — which does intend to back particular candidates — said they also had logistical concerns about the law’s requirements. All three said their mailings and ads couldn’t display how much was spent on them, because none of them would know the exact cost until the printing was finished.

Askey said the provisions seemed “onerous.”

“To report each expenditure or intent of expenditure over $100 is prohibitive of free speech in this day of pretty expensive political advertising,” he said.

Wanting clarity

To Colelli, the law seems pretty simple. Individuals can spend as much as they want to promote a candidate, he said, so long as they make it clear they’re doing so.

“There is no limit on individual expenditures, so I’m not sure where they think their speech is being limited,” he said.

Paul Tiger, a former member of the task force and a current member of the city’s election committee, said he personally would have set the threshold higher — say, about $500 — but that the idea was to be a help to voters, not a burden to advocates.

“We’re not taking your rights away,” Tiger said. “You can do what you want to. We’re simply saying we want to know who’s involved.”

He added that enforcement is on a complaint basis — there’s no ongoing inspection to flush out a lawbreaker.

“The idea that we’re rummaging through newspapers or looking through Web sites every day ...” Tiger said, breaking off in a chuckle. “I have a life.”

Committee chairwoman Linda Champion could not be reached for comment Saturday.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the reporting requirements for individuals unconstitutional and to either delete or refine the city’s definition of “electioneering communication.”

Colelli, meanwhile, is hoping that everyone eventually ends up on the same page.

“Hopefully, the court can see what the act was trying to accomplish,” he said. “And out of this will come clarity, I suppose.”