The politicians are at it again, trying to
silence free speech through mandatory campaign disclosure laws. In N.J.
lawmakers ready to change law that lets ’dark money’ donors keep their
identities secret, Susan K. Livio reports
for NJ.com:
Political organizations that raise money to influence elections
and policy in New Jersey would be forced to disclose their donors under a bill
a state Senate panel approved Thursday that would help shine light on so-called
“dark money” in politics.
Under current state law, so-called “super PACs,” 527 groups, and
501(c)4 “social welfare” organizations are allowed to keep their donors secret
as long as they spend less than half of their funds on political activities.
But this bill, approved 12-0 by the Senate Budget and
Appropriations Committee, would require groups that spend at least $3,000
bolstering a candidate or influencing policy to publicly reveal donors.
I
left these comments:
Monetary expenditure is integral to free speech.
“Dark” or anonymous spending is crucial to free expression. Free expression is
crucial to intellectual freedom of the individual as well as public debate
during election campaigns or regarding law and policies. After all, what is the
“democratic process” but free and open debate for the purpose to “influence
elections and policy?” Those who throw around terms like “dark money” are up to
no good. They are attacking freedom of speech.
“Dark Money” is the language of dictators who
want to silence the free speech of private citizens. Anonymous spending equals
anonymous expression. Political anonymity has been used throughout history by
free speakers to avoid harassment and intimidation by both governments,
political opponents, and private thugs, as New Direction New Jersey
experienced. It was used by Revolutionary advocates of freedom and independence
to shield them from British reprisals. It was used by oppressed groups, such as
20th Century Civil Rights advocates, to shield them from white racist mobs and
prosecutorial reprisals. Anonymous speech has been sanctioned by many Supreme
Court justices, including John Harlin II, Hugo Black, John Paul Stevens, and
Clarence Thomas.* Black also contended that anonymous political speech enriches
political debate. People might want to head off ad hominem attacks so their
ideas can be debated on the merits.
Mandatory disclosure is an intimidation tactic.
“Transparency” is to the political establishment a means to control the
political narrative and silence dissenting activists. Anonymous political
spending is a fundamental right that, as SCOTUS ruled in 1958 in NAACP vs.
Alabama, falls under the protection of the First Amendment.
---------------------------------
Indeed, the new disclosure requirements were inspired
because “non-profits with ties to Gov. Phil Murphy and state Senate President Stephen Sweeney came under fire in recent weeks” for refusing to disclose donors.
But one of them refused to disclose precisely to shield donors from
intimidation. As Liveo reports:
New Direction New Jersey, a group that promotes Murphy’s agenda,
last year pledged to disclose its donors but recently
reversed its decision, citing “increased
attacks from powerful special interests seeking to preserve the status quo."
My emphasis. Enough said.
Related Reading:
* The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech--by Kimberley Strassel, especially Chapter 2, “Publius & Co.”
No comments:
Post a Comment