The Institute for Justice has a new study on state campaign-finance laws that focuses on the impact of state campaign-finance laws and especially the impact of these laws on grass-roots activism, such as on ballot initiatives. I'm not an expert on the constitutional questions this may raise, but from a policy perspective it seems to me that these laws are quite overbroad in the way it applies to at least some sorts of grass-roots activity and that in those situations the laws impose serious costs on ordinary citizens with little conceivable benefit.
The study is here.
Steve Simpson of IJ has an NRO column describing their poll findings here:
All 24 states that permit citizen initiatives have similar regulations. The driving force behind such laws is the idea of “disclosure” — that groups who favor or oppose a ballot issue should be required to reveal information about their donors and activities to the government and the public. To proponents, the idea seems a harmless way to ensure an informed electorate.
Not surprisingly, most people agree. The Institute for Justice polled more than 2,000 citizens in six states with ballot issue elections, and found that people overwhelmingly agree with the idea of disclosure.
But when people are faced with the reality of disclosure, their support turns to opposition. Fifty-six percent of those polled oppose having to reveal their name, address and contribution amount, and fully 71 percent oppose being forced to reveal their employer’s name. Moreover, most respondents say they would likely “think twice” before making a contribution if it means revealing personal information to the government.
In other words, citizens themselves admit disclosure laws have a chilling effect on their free-speech rights, making them less likely to exercise those rights by contributing to a cause they believe in.
For more on the grass-roots neighborhood activists described in the column, see here. IJ took over their defense after they had previoulsy hired their own lawyer to defend them in the case.
Perhaps raising the limit to $1000? Making only people who contribute more than $50 or $100 disclose that information?
Some people are of course comfortable with this information being easily accessible, but some become more uncomfortable with some aspects of "reform" (esp. when their addresses and employers are shown - OpenSecret.org doesn't do this, but at least one site used to).
If the person's name is common and you don't know their zip code, this of course can be pretty useless - but if, for example, they have a name like Volokh and you know they live in California, it's much easier to find the information quickly.
The report is here: Spitzer Report
Given that the chief lawyer of the state has declared there is no rational basis for these laws, it would be mighty easy to win a claim against the state of New York, even under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 25, which is enforceable in American courts.
The Spitzer Report is full of such information. It also provided hard data of the kind used by Courts here to strike down ballot access laws.
Seems like most everyone I know is either too cheap, jaded or extremist to donate to any registered candidates, of course.
I use it all the time (although I’m more partial to NewsMeat.com as it’s more comprehensive) whenever I read an article or a report from someone or some group professing to be a “nonpartisan” or a “moderate.” It was particularly useful recently when a group calling itself “Proud to Pay for a Better Minnesota” (read: wants higher income taxes) claimed that they were (a) bipartisan and (b) were just trying to have higher taxes on themselves. When I and other MN bloggers looked into it we found that the signators gave something like 95% of their collective $5 million in campaign donations to Democrats and the majority of signators were either retired, unemployed (homemakers), or worked at a job where they would benefit from higher spending (e.g. worked for the government, worked for a non-profit that was trying to get government funding, or worked for a company that was pushing for large corporate subsidies for their company such as the family that owned the MN Twins and basically got a $300 million subsidized loan for a new stadium).
And if it had told you who those people voted for, instead of who they donated to, wouldn't it have provided you the same confirmation?
One is to work for IJ.
I'm not sure what the other one is.
That's ironic coming from an anonymous poster....
But when people are faced with the reality of disclosure, their support turns to opposition. Fifty-six percent of those polled oppose having to reveal their name, address and contribution amount, and fully 71 percent oppose being forced to reveal their employer’s name.
Isn't this just standard interest-group push-polling? How many laws of any kind can you get people to support in a poll when you phrase them strictly in terms of the cost to them? What tax rate, for example, would people "support" if they were asked how much they'd be willing to pay? And similarly, what kinds of government spending cuts would they "support" even when described as eliminations of their own government checks?
Moreover, most respondents say they would likely “think twice” before making a contribution if it means revealing personal information to the government.
What fraction of respondents would make an anonymous contribution without thinking twice? And of those who would, but who would be discouraged if required to reveal information about themselves, what fraction are reacting to the embarrassment of making contributions that are transparently in their own financial interest? And what, exactly, would be so terrible about the prospect of disclosure making such donors "think twice"?
I might be curious about who will benefit, but my curiosity doesn't create a right for me to know the answer. It might be "advantageous" for me to know whether Bill Gates is voting for (e.g.) John Edwards or Barack Obama -- if he supports one of them, perhaps that means I would rather support the other -- but that doesn't mean I have the right to have him disclose it. If there's no corruption issue, then what's the basis for the disclosure?
Well, presumably some people think there is, and some people think there isn't. Why would any of the latter "think twice" about being identified as contributors?
Given the complexity of ballot measures, knowing who is providing financial support for a measure can be very useful in better understanding the purpose and effects of the measure and in making an informed choice in terms of how to vote.
As for those who will not participate if they have to give out their information, I say good riddance. Politics is not for cowards. Besides, this is a good non-financial indicator of the strength of your preference. If you have a very strong preference, you will likely be willing to contribute despite the loss of anonymity.
The one objection I would sustain is limiting information concerning street addresses. There are these people, known as stalkers, who probably should not have access to such information. But name, city, and state seem like reasonable information to release.
By the way, there is certainly a risk of corruption when it comes to ballot measures too. Especially when they allocate money. For example, a proponent of a ballot measure could insert requirement for contractors to work on a project that few competitors could meet, but that they could. It certainly would help make the case against such ballot measures when the identity of such proponents making large contributions is disclosed.