The drumbeat goes on to pass New Jersey’s “dark
money” bill into law. Under the interesting title To
combat mistrust, the public needs to know who’s giving politicians their cash, State Senator Troy Singleton is the latest to beat the
compulsory disclosure drum. Here are some excerpts:
In recent years, independent expenditure campaign committees have
become a growing influence over our electoral process – not just here in New
Jersey, but nationally as well. They funnel millions and millions of dollars in
order to sway elections without ever disclosing the identities of their
donors. This has led to a system that is dominated by wealthy special interests
who remain anonymous.
These clandestine entities live in the shadows of our political
system, with benign sounding names designed to conceal donors’ identities and
their true intentions. Their funding is known as “dark money” for a reason – to
keep the public in the dark and unenlightened.
The public has a right to know who funds the political ads they
see on television, encounter on social media, and hear on the radio. Without
knowing what interests are behind the information, they are unable to make
informed decisions.[!]
To combat that feeling of mistrust, we need real campaign finance
reform. That is why I’ve been working closely with the New Jersey Election Law
Enforcement Commission since 2016 to craft legislation that would provide
greater transparency through heightened disclosure, which I believe is
necessary to empower voters to hold all of us elected representatives
accountable. In the wake of the United State Supreme Court’s Citizen
United decision, we saw how drastically the voices of average citizens
were drowned out in today’s political structure, which impedes the
democratic process.
The "politics of personal destruction," a phrase
once made popular by former President Bill Clinton, has never been, nor will it
ever be, my objective or motivation in crafting public policy.
Ever since Citizens United, the strongest victory
for freedom of speech in a long time, the
statists of both parties have been trying to work around the decision.
Compulsory disclosure is one tactic.
All emphasized phrases in the above excerpts are
mine. I posted these comments:
The “voices of average citizens”
are not “drowned out” by anonymous expenditures; not my voice or anyone else’s.
That ridiculous catchphrase is hollow. Each of us is free to consider the
issues and candidates before we vote. Such spending amplifies the issues, fosters debate, and helps us decide.
The “public”—including the
government—has no “right to know” how private individuals spend their money on
political activism. Political expression is an inalienable individual right.
The essence of the democratic process is expression and debate geared precisely
toward the goal of “swaying” and “influencing our elections and governmental
processes”; that is, persuading others
to vote a certain way.
The
"politics of personal destruction" is precisely what mandatory
disclosure would expose activists to. That may not be Singleton’s motive. What
about others? That political weapon shouldn’t be unleashed at all. Spending is integral to free 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 [1958], “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.
The political class and its
media cohorts are trying to gin up paranoia about some underworld of “dark
money.” It seeks “transparency” so it can demonize and intimidate private
activists, especially dissenters, into silence. Why? Precisely because it
doesn’t like being held accountable.
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment