🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
Legislation is popping up in several states that would give the government a license to track down and expose contributors to causes and non-profits that they don’t like.
These bills say that the government can not only go after a group or organization that advocated for a policy in their state but any individual or entity that gave to said group, following the money down to the person or business that generated the dollar in the first place.
This likely unconstitutional standard would give state governments the power to effectively dox every individual who gave donations. Such a power would predictably lead to the intimidation and silencing of speech, as opponents could target these people for retribution or even violence.
Maine’s L.D. 951, brought forward by Sen. Richard A. Bennet, Nicole Grohoski, and Laura D. Supica, would force any campaign donor contributing over $2,500 to disclose their identity to the public.
This law would not simply require PACs and other donors to disclose their direct sources of donations but all pass-through sources.
In layman’s terms, this means that even if you donate money to a nonprofit, which then donates a portion of its money to a PAC, the PAC would be required to disclose your name publicly.
Minnesota’s SF 905 would do the same, requiring that organizations disclose the identities, meaning an individual’s “name, address, and employer…” as specified by the bill itself, of their original source of income. The bill went through a Senate hearing yesterday.
Idaho has seen Senate Bill 1186 referred to committee. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Doug Okuniewicz, would, as the previous bills do, allow the tracking down of all those who donated $1,000 or more until reaching the ‘original source’.
These onerous regulations would create a significant chilling effect. In the age of cancel culture, this could go as far as harassment and death threats for public figures. More insidiously, those with little to no public presence may be at risk of getting fired by their employer.
Preventing this silencing is why the Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution protects speech and that a level of anonymity is necessary to exercise the right to free speech and association.
For example, the case NAACP v. Alabama struck down Alabama’s attempt to force the NAACP to disclose its donors because it would violate their freedom of association, subjecting individuals to potential backlash for simply choosing to contribute to an organization, however dissident its ideas.
Recently, in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta, the California Attorney General’s office was denied the ability to require that charities provide information about their major donors. The Supreme Court struck this requirement down because, shocking no one, it unduly burdened donors’ freedom of association.
The precedents against attacks on free speech have been established through myriad court cases, enough that it would be redundant to list them all, and the bill should be thrown out accordingly.
For Republicans in particular, disclosure is a huge trap. It undermines constitutional rights, which is obviously wrong, but further, it empowers big government to unleash far-left attacks on those who support right-of-center causes (or even those who supported a business that gave to a group, which then gave to a right-leaning group). Thus, undue and unconstitutional disclosure laws create an environment of fear that threatens individuals who simply wish to exercise their right to free speech unimpeded.
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.atr.org and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.