Can a church really funnel dark money into the campaign against Prop. 1?

By Jim Jones
Reader Contributor

Dark money has become the root of evil in political campaigns across the country. National interest groups seem to be lurking everywhere, seeing where they can weigh in, either in favor of or against a candidate or ballot measure, without disclosing their identity. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador may now be inviting dark money interests into the campaign against Idaho’s Proposition 1, the measure to repeal Idaho’s total abortion ban.

Labrador has just issued an official opinion concluding that a “nonbusiness entity church” that spends more than $1,000 to oppose Prop. 1 does not have to disclose the identity of its donors “as an exercise of that church’s religious beliefs.” 

That is, the church is exempt from the Sunshine Law’s reporting requirements because of some religious objection to abortion. 

The opinion does not provide any criteria for determining how central abortion is to the church’s religious beliefs or even how to categorize Prop. 1 as a religious rather than secular issue. The opinion would allow out-of-state interest groups to funnel tons of money through those churches into the campaign against Prop. 1, without voters learning of their identity.

The AG’s opinion runs counter to guidance provided last October by Idaho’s respected secretary of state, Phil McGrane. There is no legitimate reason to provide a religious exemption from the clear-cut reporting requirement of the Sunshine Law because of a church’s position on what is basically a secular matter: voting on a ballot measure regarding women’s health care. 

If such an abortion ban is, in fact, primarily a matter of religious beliefs, it is curious that the state can impose it on the entire population.

The opinion is highly suspect, not only because it second-guesses Idaho’s top election expert, but because it is a sharp break from Labrador’s routine practice of refusing to comply with his statutory duty to provide written opinions to government officials. He has written only seven opinions in four years — three of which have involved abortion, his signature political issue.

His well-publicized opposition to Prop. 1 once again raises the specter of conflict of interest. Writing an opinion that could result in dark money from out of state being funneled into the campaign against Prop. 1 by an entity calling itself a “church” certainly smacks of a conflicting interest. Labrador has been closely aligned with well-heeled Christian nationalist groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has strongly opposed practically any form of abortion. 

Labrador’s opinion hinges on Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act, which is intended to protect a person’s free exercise of religion. That right may not be “substantially” burdened unless the burden is “essential to further a compelling governmental interest” and is the least restrictive means for doing so. His claim that the reporting requirement for anti-abortion churches violates this Act is dead wrong.

The Sunshine Law requires all recipients of political donations to disclose the identity of their donors so as to prevent dark money contributors from corrupting Idaho elections. The reporting requirement applies to all entities that use donor money to influence the vote on political candidates or ballot measures. The requirement is neutral and universally applicable. It does not target religious groups. It does not substantially burden churches that choose to funnel money to political causes.

It is the least restrictive means for identifying who is trying to influence elections. 

Labrador’s opinion would subvert the very purpose of the Sunshine Act. If an out-of-state interest group wanted to influence elections in Idaho, but wished for any reason to hide their identity, they could either funnel their dark money contributions through an existing church or set up their own to do the job. That would frustrate Idaho’s longstanding policy of shining light upon political contributions and expenditures.

The framers of the Idaho Constitution were cognizant of the danger of intermingling church and state. They sought to separate the two in Article I, Section 4. That section guarantees the “exercise and enjoyment of religious faith” but prohibits any preference being “given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.” 

Labrador failed to consider whether his opinion grants a prohibited preference to some churches by excusing them from the Sunshine Law’s reporting requirement. 

The timing of Labrador’s opinion is also suspect. Secretary of State McGrane released his guidance on Oct. 16, 2025. Labrador released his contrary opinion 10 months later, just as the election is heating up. 

We are now faced with the prospect of having a dark money group anonymously dump a ton of money into the coffers of some sort of church and use it to publicly hammer the Prop. 1 initiative. I’d urge McGrane to stick with his guidance.

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho attorney general (1983-1991) and 12 years as justice of the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He also publishes at substack.com/@jjcommontater.