The way to counter corruption and check the influence of
entrenched power is not to pry open the donor files of organizations, but to
increase participation in democracy – including by protecting the identities of
people involved with advocacy organizations. Rather than discourage giving to
nonprofits, the state should consider making it easier for New Jerseyans to
support the causes of their choice.
The most significant social movements of the last century – for
civil rights, racial equality, and LGBTQ rights, to name just a few – were
powered by the ability of like-minded people to join and support groups, and to
do so privately. Our society would not be where it is today without this
fundamental right.
The equation for democracy is government transparency with
individual privacy. Let’s work hand-in-hand to ensure the right balance.
My emphasis. I left these comments under the
article:
“Government transparency with individual
privacy”: A great phrase in a great article.
The term “dark money” inverts that principle. It
is a term of statism, not freedom. The money is not “dark” to the person
spending his own money on his own expression. What is truly dark is politicians
trying for force disclosure. Short of any direct or imminent ties to criminal
activity, neither the politicians nor the public at large have any right to
know who is financing what speech if the spender doesn’t wish them to know.
The fundamental individual right of free
expression does not come with the condition, “as long as you sacrifice your
privacy.” It will be a dark day if this bill becomes law.
--------------------------------------
The Star-Ledger previously published my
letter on the bill, on January
29, 2019, under the heading Protect ‘dark money’ and its purpose. It is
available only in the print edition:
To the editors,
Proposed NJ legislation would “force . . . political organizations
that raise money to influence elections and policy in New Jersey” to disclose
their donors’ identities (Susan Liveo, N.J.
lawmakers ready to change law that lets ’dark money’ donors keep their
identities secret). 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 Liveo 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 Supreme Court
justices John Harlin II, Hugo Black, John Paul Stevens, and Clarence Thomas. As
SCOTUS 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.
Sincerely,
Michael A. LaFerrara
As noted, the bill passed. The alleged purpose of the bill is to prevent “nonprofit groups
spending money on U.S. elections to hide contributions from foreign sources.”
It is illegal in America for certain foreign sources, such as governments, to
interfere U.S. elections. Spending on elections is considered interference. But
this is a straw man. Foreign spending should be handled like any other criminal
activity--through an objective process of evidence gathering and judicial
oversight, such as subpoenas. Demanding a general disclosure of all donors
based on the mere suspicion that some of the donations are illegal foreign
sources is akin to forcing all citizens in a given community to submit to
warrantless searches of all their property because one member of the community
may be a thief. Declaring all community members guilty until proven innocent is
the essence of injustice. For the same reason, NJ’s “dark money” bill is every
bit as unjust. In my view, the bill is a thinly veiled move by the politicians
to shield themselves from scrutiny and criticism, and a major attack on free
speech.
Related Reading:
The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech--by Kimberley Strassel, especially Chapter 2, “Publius & Co.”
1 comment:
It might be just a view, or opinion, that a "bill is a thinly veiled move by the politicians to shield themselves". But it is a FACT that the bill does shield them from scrutiny and criticism, and is a major attack on free speech. Thus, the view or opinion is most likely a fact. Why doubt the motives of these 'politicians'?
Otherwise, I find the reasoning, here, very sound. We have the right of anonymity in political contributions regardless of some who illegally contribute. Likewise, we have our full 2nd. Amendment rights, including that of self defense, regardless of criminals who use guns to commit crimes.
Post a Comment