Friday, February 1, 2019

Kill New Jersey’s ‘Dark Money’ Ban


In Dark money reform now hinges on Assembly Speaker Coughlin (1/31/19), the New Jersey Star-Ledger editorialized in favor of a pending bill to compel disclosure of contributors to political action groups:

The Senate is close to taking a big step towards cleaner elections by approving a bill that would force secret donors to come out of the shadows and identify themselves, a measure that Gov. Phil Murphy has promised to sign. The bill was set for a vote on Thursday before a last-minute delay, but is likely to win approval soon.

This one is a big deal. The long effort to contain political spending has effectively collapsed, thanks to court rulings that protect unlimited political donations to “independent” groups as a form of free speech. The best we can hope for now is to throw open the curtains and let some light in, so that we can at least see who is pulling the strings.

It is unfathomable that one of the biggest benefactors of free speech, the press, would argue in terms like “contain political spending.”

A couple of days before, on 1/29/19, the Star-Ledger published my letter on this bill (as of this posting, not available online). Under the heading Protect ‘dark money’ and its purpose, here is my letter:

Proposed New Jersey legislation would force “political organizations that raise money to influence elections and policy in New Jersey” to disclose their donors’ identities (“A bid to bring ‘dark money’ into the light,” Jan. 20). But anonymity can be crucial to political advocacy, and was used throughout history by activists to avoid harassment and intimidation by governments, political opponents and thugs.

Revolutionary era advocates of independence remained anonymous to shield themselves from British reprisals, as did 20th-century civil rights advocates to shield them from private and political intimidation. And as your story reported, New Direction New Jersey, a political activist group, refused to disclose its donors due to “attacks from powerful special interests.”
Spending is integral to speech. Anonymous spending equals anonymous speech. Anonymous speech has been sanctioned by U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Harlin II, Hugo Black, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas. As the court ruled in NAACP vs. Alabama, “compelled disclosure” impairs individuals’ “collective effort to foster beliefs” by exposing them to “manifestations of public hostility,” violating fundamental rights to free association and privacy thereof, free speech and due process. So-called “dark money” is an expression of these rights and should be protected.

As to the 1/31/19 editorial, the Star-Ledger did pay tepid lip service to the threat to free speech that the bill represents:

The bill is opposed by several grassroots groups, liberal and conservative, who feel they are caught in the crossfire as good governments groups like the Brennan Center and the Election Law Enforcement Commission push to clean up the political system. Amol Sinha, the director of the ACLU of New Jersey, worries that donors may be scared away if they know their names will be disclosed. That’s echoed by conservative groups like New Jersey Right to Life and Americans for Prosperity.

“We have a lot of high-level anonymous donors,” Sinha says. “We don’t want our donors’ free speech rights to be chilled.”

In California, Sinha said, disclosure rules revealed the names of donors to groups pressing for marriage equality, one of whom worked for the Catholic Church. Wouldn’t that donor’s right to engage be infringed if his political activity could cost him his job, Sinha asks?

It’s a reasonable concern, but it’s outweighed by the need to protect our political system from the corrupting influence of dark money. We already reveal the names of those contributing directly to a political party, or to a candidate. Should those names be hidden as well?

I left these comments:

“A reasonable concern.” That’s all the Star-Ledger can say about freedom of speech?

“Protect our political system” from what? From the “corruption” of pesky private citizens spending their own money speaking their minds in order to influence elections and policy? What exactly is our political system, if not private citizens engaging through free speech? Who is protected by compelled disclosure? Not the citizen activist. The politicians, that’s who. Why should they be protected from private political activism?

Direct contributions to political parties and their candidates--those who actually hold office--is one thing. Political activism through free speech expenditures intended to influence the officeholders is quite another. We’re not talking bribery here. We’re talking First Amendment. It’s private citizens’ fundamental right to free speech that should be protected. So-called “dark money” is not dark to those who do the spending. They know it’s their money. They have every right to speak out including when it comes to legislation that directly affects them, and to keep their identities to themselves if they choose. Anything that inhibits people from speaking out, whether through groups or individually, is an abridgement of free speech. That’s not merely a “reasonable concern.” The proposed ban is an assault on one of a free society’s foundational rights.

Spending is integral to speech. Anonymous spending equals anonymous speech. Anonymous speech is free speech. Free speech is a crucial citizens’ tool for keeping their political representatives accountable. Compelled disclosure is just an intimidation tactic to silence dissent and protect the political class, not the political system.

Kill this bill. It is un-American.

Related Reading:





The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech
--by Kimberley Strassel, especially Chapter 2, “Publius & Co.”

No comments: