On Monday, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) advocated for his Disclose Act, which would increase disclosure of campaign-related spending. But with recent examples of private citizens being attacked and even fired for their political views, the prospect of such transparency has some serious unintended consequences that need to be fully explored.
“The public should be informed about who is spending vast sums of money,” Van Hollen told a crowd at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
He argued that his bill would allow people to know whose money influences leaders, so that Americans can hold elected officials accountable. He asserted that elected officials can’t avoid disclosure because they might face “public backlash,” as it’s part of the “rough and tumble” of public debate.
But Van Hollen is overlooking a key consequence of his bill. The problem isn’t about elected officials facing public backlash; it’s about private citizens facing that criticism. It will have a huge impact on donors, some of whom are already feeling the heat under the current disclosure laws. One such example is Mozilla co-founder and CEO, Brendan Eich, who resigned after public backlash against his $1,000 donation in support of Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage in California.
The reason political disclosure is so hotly debated is this unavoidable nature of its effects. Increasing disclosure means elected officials’ and private citizens’ donor information will be released. You can’t increase or decrease one without doing the same to the other. This creates a conflict between two principles Americans hold dear: government transparency and citizen privacy.
Americans want government to be open and transparent, but we want our lives to remain private. This is particularly true in wake of the NSA and IRS scandals.
Because increased political donation disclosure opens private citizens as well as government to criticism, it is important to consider the consequences and weigh the benefits. Van Hollen did not address such concerns when speaking at AEI. The closest he came to addressing it was saying that the Supreme Court has made exemptions for disclosure, when appropriate.
It is true that, in Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee, the Court ruled the Socialist Workers Party didn’t have to disclose the names and addresses of its contributors in spite of an Ohio law, because the Party historically the object of government harassment. Similarly, in NAACP v. Alabama, the Court held unconstitutional “Alabama’s demand that the NAACP reveal the names and addresses” of its members. But these seem to highlight the dangers of disclosure – even to government – and suggest maybe exemption from disclosure should be the rule, not the exemption.
This is a component often absent from the debate. But the point is more legitimate than ever, after Mozilla’s CEO resigned and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) somewhat regularly berates private citizens who are also big donors — the Koch brothers — on the Senate floor.
We must ask if knowing more about whose money may influence politicians and political causes is worth this decrease in our privacy. This is especially important as Van Hollen advocated for disclosure for 501 (c)(4) organizations, calling them “major political players,” and “the primary vehicle of choice” for people seeking to avoid disclosure. He attributed the recent attention around (c)(4)s, both on the left and right of the political spectrum, to all their political involvement.
Regardless of one’s views on any one issue, one must consider the consequences of such a system. The goal is to hold elected officials accountable, but it also serves to take private citizens to task for their views. In this system, private citizens must defend their views to the public. If their views differ, they may be ostracized or persecuted.
Some think only people who donate to “bad” people and “bad” things will face such consequences. But people with sound minds and good hearts can disagree on what is “good.”
There is reason to be wary of less disclosure too, however, because it has the potential to selectively harm groups. In 2012, the National Organization for Marriage’s donor list was leaked by the IRS. Less disclosure could allow people in government to selectively leak donor lists, thereby selectively harming groups. With full disclosure, any effects would be uniform, and there would be less opportunity to leak such information, as it would already be public.
When considering more disclosure of expenditures, it is important to evaluate such consequences, rather than pretend like only elected officials will be affected. The best policy results from the deepest evaluations.
The purpose of the Disclose Act is noble. We should want to know who is influencing our elected officials, as well as what motivates them, so we can hold our leaders accountable. But in effect, the bill will also cause people to judge private citizens. America needs to have an open discussion and determine the best balance of disclosure and privacy, after weighing the options.
