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:
Post a Comment