New Jersey’s new so-called “Dark Money” law,
which forces mandatory public disclosure of financial donors to political
action committees, is under
attack in the courts. In a New Jersey
Star-Ledger guest column, Matthew Smith and Karen Haskin argued that “progressives
[should] help fix N.J.'s dark money law. If that sounds politically suspicious, you’d be right. Note the
word “fix,” rather than repeal. Here are some excerpts:
Our planet is undergoing a climate crisis. President Trump pulled
the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord – the first serious global
attempt to set us on the right course toward a healthier and livable future.
After decades of denial and incrementalism, we are now left to do
our part as New Jerseyans to build a healthy and resilient future for
ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren. But just at the worst possible
time, our lawmakers in Trenton are making it harder for us to do that work.
Furthermore, organizations like Food & Water Action and STAND
Central New Jersey are supposed to have
the opportunity to provide input on legislation affecting their community of
grassroots advocates.
Yet that process broke down completely when the Legislature passed
a disclosure bill, also known as a ‘dark money’ bill, that benefits large
corporations and special interests that damage our environment and work against
progressive interests, like LGBT rights and women’s reproductive freedoms.
The disclosure bill placed onerous
new requirements on citizen-driven advocates working to protect the environment
against polluters. Such advocates push
for policies that will transform our bad energy habits into clean and renewable
solutions.
At the same time, the law did nothing to increase disclosure
requirements for 501c(6) trade organizations that promote business interests in
Trenton, giving polluters and big corporate interests, like the Chamber of
Commerce and the Petroleum Institute, an advantage in the policymaking process.
I don’t know if that last statement is true. But
if the law is not balanced, it’s bad on “Equal Protection” grounds, if nothing
else. That aside, if you smell the stench of political partisanship, rather
than a defense of free speech, you’re political sense of “smell” is spot-on.
This next excerpt is the tipoff:
We call on the Legislature to instead work with the progressive
community on new legislation that protects the privacy rights of donors and
treats citizen-backed groups and powerful trade associations equally.
In addition, new legislation must recognize the difference
between political action committees that seek to influence our elections and
citizen-backed non-profits that advocate for policy solutions in Trenton.
My emphasis. Note who are exalted as
“citizens”—our beloved Left statists. Note who are not—the Left’s political
opponents. I posted these comments:
“legislation must
recognize the difference between political action committees that seek to
influence our elections and citizen-backed non-profits that advocate for policy
solutions in Trenton.”
Nonsense. There is zero
distinction. Free speech to “advocate” for policy and free speech to
“influence” elections are 2 sides of the same sacred free speech coin. Advocacy
is influence. Influence is advocacy. Every person, whether individually or
through voluntary collaboration with others, has a right to free expression for
the purpose of political influence and persuasion and advocacy, whether
involving policy or elections of politicians. Period. Elected politicians ARE
the policy-makers.
Freedom of speech is an
inalienable right of all voluntary associations, be it a Chamber of Commerce, a
STAND Central New Jersey, a Petroleum Institute, or a Food & Water
Action.
Spending is integral to speech—an indispensable means to public expression—so
mandatory disclosure is a violation of the First Amendment, not to mention an
attack on privacy. Smith and Haskin are right to oppose the so-called “dark
money” law. But what could have been a principled self-interested defense of
free speech turned out to be a political hack rant for the purpose of
self-aggrandizement at the expense of others’ inalienable rights to free
speech. “I’m entitled to my free speech, but you’re not entitled to yours” is
not a defense of free speech. Free speech for my opinions but not for your
opinions is not a moral argument. It is a political diatribe.
ALL political advocacy
organizations are associations of citizens, and ALL citizens regardless of
political opinions deserve protection of their free speech rights, equally and
at all times.
* [Matthew Smith is New Jersey state director
for Food & Water Action. Karen Haskin is president of STAND Central New Jersey, a grassroots organization.]
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