In the last election cycle, after some legal wrangling, the Arizona Supreme Court determined that there were not enough valid signatures for a citizen initiative that would require political advocacy organizations to disclose the names and personal information of their donors.
It was part of an ongoing campaign against so-called “dark” or “dirty” money.
Advocates argue that voters have a “right” to know the internal affairs of political organizations, and all they’re asking is for transparency, but saying it is a “right” does not make it so. In fact, there is legal precedent to the contrary.
In NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), the Supreme Court of the U.S. held unanimously that Alabama could not demand information, including a list of members, from the Alabama Chapter of the NAACP, citing First Amendment freedom of association. Now, I’m sure that all Alabama, in 1958, was interested in the people’s right to know, and transparency and stuff.
So, people need to know the names of donors so they can ... what? Change their minds on an abortion bill or the outlawing of some firearms? I often have strong opinions on legislation and candidates, but they always develop around the merits of the legislation or qualities of the candidate, not the opinions of George Soros or the Koch brothers, or whoever else may be sending money to someone.
Though there is little to be gained from publishing donor lists beyond providing targets for harassment — see the aftermath of the passing of Prop. 108 (regarding same-sex marriage) in California — activists are now focusing on municipalities to enact such regulations.
Last November, voters in Phoenix approved a change to the City Charter that adds new reporting requirements. According to the summary, “The required disclosure will identify all expenditures and contributions valued in excess of $1,000 that are made by any original or intermediary source and used to influence the result of a local City of Phoenix election.” This law is similar to one passed in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in 2015.
Currently, Matt Miller, senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute, is representing plaintiffs in a suit against the city Denver challenging a similar disclosure law there. Miller reported one witness’s testimony saying, “He was threatened by a caller to NPR while he was giving an interview. The caller asked him if he “knew what he would find when he got home tonight.” This alarmed the witness so much that he and his employer sent a private security team to the witness’s house to do a welfare check on his wife, who was home alone at the time.”
Of another witness, Miller said, “He produced a series of vile and obscene emails threatening him with sexual violence. He produced a tweet wishing the witness would get a ‘bullet between the eyes.’”
I contacted the city of Tucson mayor and council to get a feeling for Tucson’s vulnerability in this regard. Ward 6 Councilman Steve Kozachik noted that the devil is often in the details, “I’d want to see the specifics before saying I’d support any particular ballot issue. While I may agree conceptually, the way a measure is written matters.”
Ward 3 Councilman Paul Durham Kozachik adds, “I strongly supported Terry Goddard’s effort to force shadow dark money campaigns to release the names of their donors. ... On the local level, I participated in the City of Tucson’s Clean Elections program, which helps keep the focus on ideas and policies, not on who can raise the most money from special interests.”
Fortunately, it appears that we are in no immediate danger of going the way of Santa Fe, Denver, or Phoenix. Nevertheless, stay frosty Tucson.
