Thursday, June 6, 2019

Murphy’s Veto of NJ’s ‘Dark Money’ Ban Should Be Unconditional


New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy “conditionally” vetoed a bipartisan “dark money” disclosure bill that would have forced political advocacy groups to publicize their donors. In GOVERNOR’S VETO OF THE ‘DARK MONEY’ BILL IS WRONG FOR NEW JERSEY, NJ Spotlight’s David Goodman railed against the veto, criticizing “the governor’s misunderstanding of transparency in combating dark money’s corruption of politics and elections.” Goodman continued:

So, where do we go from here? In the past two years, almost $100 million in untraceable dark money has flowed into New Jersey elections. Special interests can manipulate elections by shuttling their money through nonprofits, corporations, and other outside groups. These groups, under the current law, do not have to disclose their donors, meaning that those special interests function in secret. Without S-1500, New Jersey voters cannot know who is trying to buy their vote.

Goodman and his ilk never explain, or offer proof of, how “untraceable dark money” corrupts politics, or manipulates elections, or buys votes.

I posted these comments:

“Untraceable dark money”, “manipulate elections”, “buy their vote”, “transparency” are hollow catchphrases meant to equate free speech to some sinister underworld. But what we’re talking about is private citizens merely seeking to express themselves in the political process—to “influence”—that is persuade—people to vote a certain way. And whether expenditures are done cooperatively, through PACs or advocacy groups, or individually, anonymity is an inalienable right. It’s especially important to dissenters or unpopular viewpoints, which could bring social, political, or economic persecution. There are many people, including politicians, who love demonizing people for their viewpoints. A person who doesn’t want to risk such attacks shouldn't have to shut up.

And that’s the real “corruption of politics and elections”--the politicians desire to escape the “corruption” of public criticism and scrutiny. “Dark money” bans are designed to mute and silence--particularly focussed on people who have the financial means of reaching a mass audience. When politicians silence “big money,” they silence us all.

A government should be accountable to the people it governs. Private citizens who have done nothing wrong should not be accountable to the politicians. The right to freedom of political expression and activism does not and should not come at the price of a person’s privacy, safety, or comfort. Money is the means of expressing one’s thoughts, and is thus inextricably linked to freedom of speech. Citizens’ political/issue expenditures are none of the neighbors’ or politicians’ business. Murphy’s veto should be unconditional.

Related Reading:






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



No comments: