Tuesday, September 3, 2019

N.J. AG Confirms: State’s Disclosure Law is about Stifling Political Accountability


New Jersey’s new law (S1500) banning so-called “dark money” donations to political activist groups—donations made anonymously—is being challenged in court on First Amendment grounds. As Brent Johnson of NJ Advance Media for NJ.com reports in N.J. has new law to unmask secret campaign donors. A lawsuit aims to kill it:

A prominent conservative group is suing the state to overturn a controversial law signed by Gov. Phil Murphy that forces more political organizations that raise millions of dollars to influence elections and policy in New Jersey to disclose donors that were previously kept secret.

The lawsuit specifically names state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal and leaders of the New Jersey Law Enforcement Commission.

Grewal’s office responded with a legal brief defending the law on Tuesday.

“(The law’s) transparency requirements are substantially related to the important state interests in providing the New Jersey electorate with information, deterring actual corruption and avoiding any appearance of corruption, and facilitating the enforcement of other laws regulating the political process,” the brief said.

“If the Court allows it to take effect, the law has the potential to strengthen our democracy by revealing who is funding some of the independent organizations — like AFP — that have had the greatest impact on our political system since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the door to unlimited independent expenditures,” the brief continued.

Johnson observes that this law triggered “a rare case where both the ACLU and much more right-leaning Americans for Prosperity oppose the same measure.” The law forces disclosure only for donations of $10,000 or more. But that’s merely the camel’s nose under the tent. Does anyone seriously believe that the requirement won’t be expanded, especially when donors and groups figure out ways to get around the limit?

I posted these comments:

Grewal confirms the real purpose of the disclosure law, and it’s not about corruption. Things like bribery are already against the law. The law’s purpose is to stifle the ability of citizens and voters to hold politicians accountable. A fundamental purpose of free political speech is to keep lawmaking transparent. Politicians, of course, would love to go about “facilitating the enforcement of laws” and minimize the “impact on our political system” by keeping those pesky, outspoken private citizens as muted as possible. 

But intellectual freedom is foundational, and freedom of speech is an unalienable right. Speaking anonymously through donations, whether to avoid personal intimidation or some other reason, is integral to free speech. 

Grewal is surprisingly frank. But the statist political class should not have free reign to “regulate the political process.” The democratic process in our constitutional republic is designed to keep the politicians accountable to we the governed, not the other way around. Here’s hoping that Americans for Prosperity and the ACLU are successful at killing this terrible law. Mandatory disclosure has no place in our political process. Donor secrecy is not to fear. Political secrecy is.

Related Reading:







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



No comments: