This letter appeared in the New Jersey Star-Ledger on 5/18/19 under the heading Murphy wrong to veto dark-money bill (no longer available online):
Once again we see politicians preventing the disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions (“No light to shine on hidden donors,” May 14). How could Gov. Phil Murphy veto a bill designed to increase transparency that passed both houses of the Legislature with only two dissenting votes?
Unfortunately, dark money and the corporate support unleashed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has corrupted the political process. In doing so, ordinary citizens have little chance of influencing our elected officials.
As Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Let’s let the sunshine in and identify those making large political donations.
Jerry Jeglinski Woodbridge
“Dark money” is the buzzword that refers to anonymous donations to political advocacy groups like political action committees (PACs). It is meant to conjure up images of something sinister.
But ‘dark money” is nothing more than private citizens exercising their rights to free speech in private.
Keep in mind that the bill that Murphy vetoed does not apply to direct contributions to politicians. It applies to political donations for purposes of independent political advocacy. As of now, PACs have not been legally required to publish or reveal to the state or to the public lists of their donors, and have not done so voluntarily. To protect their donors’ privacy, they keep their donors private.
Jeglinski’s ridiculous charge that such donations “has corrupted the political process” amounts to the charge that running political ads for the purpose of persuasion is somehow corrupt. Consider what Jeglinski is saying: that people participating in election discourse in association with others through private donations should be illegal; that who said, not what is said, is primary; that the intellectual substance is irrelevant to the chance of influencing our elected officials; that privacy is corrupting to the political process!
Well, what exactly is the political process if not a battle of persuasion and debate over ideas?
Political advocacy groups’ right to keep their donors private has long been backed by the courts. As SCOTUS ruled in 1958 in NAACP vs. Alabama, “compelled disclosure . . . is likely to affect adversely the ability of . . . members to pursue their collective effort to foster beliefs” by exposing them to “economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility,” violating fundamental rights to freedom of association, privacy, free speech, and due process. The court held that “compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy” is of the same nature as "A requirement that adherents of particular religious faiths or political parties wear identifying arm-bands,” a favored practice of dictatorships.
NJ’s forced disclosure law is opposed across the political spectrum. Opposition comes from the Institute for Free Speech, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, and Americans for Prosperity. It is even opposed by New Direction New Jersey, a PAC that backs Gov. Phil Murphy, a “dark money” ban supporter whose veto of the bill is over technical, not fundamental, reasons. New Direction New Jersey has adamantly refused to expose their donors to government officials or the public.
Political free speech is a crucial tool of private citizens to participate in the political process and to keep their political leaders accountable. Politicians have always hated accountability, and the attempt to ban private, anonymous political spending is one way for the political class to weaken citizen accountability. Note that NJ’s attempt to legally force the disclosure of the sources of campaign contributions had broad bipartisan legislative support.
Political spending is integral to freedom of speech, which in turn is a vital ingredient of the political process and of the maintenance of a free society more generally. We must defeat any attempt to restrict freedom of speech, under whatever guise and however it is framed. Speech is much more important than the vote.
Contrary to Jeglinski, the ‘Ordinary citizen’ has much less chance of influencing elected officials through his lone vote than through his speech. A single vote out of millions, while symbolically important, doesn’t extend beyond the single voter. But a letter to the editor of the New Jersey Star-Ledger, if printed, can potentially reach 114,000 readers--and that’s only the print circulation, which doesn’t include digital-only subscribers. Then there is blogging, social media like QUORA, and speaking as a group through donations that fund public political messaging. Engaging directly in or indirectly through associations is the far more effective way for ordinary citizens to influence elected officials than standing alone in a voting booth (which, by the way, is anonymous).
That’s why politicians love “the right to vote” and hate “dark money”—by restricting free speech, they better control election discourse and thus maintain greater influence over voters.
Don’t succumb to the fear tactics of the anti-free speech crowd. Reject all calls to ban “dark money.” Contra Jerry Jeglinski and his ilk, our ability to influence elected officials depends on it.
Related Reading:
Murphy’s Veto of NJ’s ‘Dark Money’ Ban Should Be Unconditional
Kill New Jersey’s ‘Dark Money’ Ban
NJ’s ‘Dark Money’ Bill an Attack on Intellectual Freedom
NJ’s ‘Dark Money’ Bill is an Assault on Free Speech
The Anti-Free Speech Fallacy of ‘Dark Money’
‘Dark Money’ is Free Speech. Protect It
The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech--by Kimberley Strassel, especially Chapter 2, “Publius & Co.”
Campaign Finance: Free Speech, Not Disclosure, is the Main Issue
Making Private Donations Anonymously is a Right
No comments:
Post a Comment