Let’s say that your state passed a law requiring that every individual who cast a vote in an election should expect to have their vote recorded by the government and posted on the Internet, along with their name, home address, employer, and job title. Would you expect voter turnout to increase or decrease?
Silly question, right? Most Americans are pretty quiet when it comes to their friends, neighbors, co-workers, and bosses learning their political beliefs. For many folks, the answer “It’s none of your damn business” comes out when somebody asks who they voted for.
In the 1950s, Little Rock, Ark. (in those days, a place not exactly known for its friendliness to the anti-segregation movement) drafted an ordinance designed to compel the NAACP to reveal its membership list to the city government. The reason, as indicated by the state’s attorney general, who helped draft the ordinance, was to “wreck” the organization. The Supreme Court shot this down, nothing that the Little Rock law “would work a significant interference with the freedom of association.”
Our hypothetical “not-so-secret ballot” law could have the same effect: it would chill voting for unpopular or minority causes and allow areas where one-party control is almost monolithic (say, Utah or San Francisco) to embarrass/target/harass differing views out of existence. Ideally, such a law would be struck down on similar grounds as the Little Rock ordinance. After all, as Justice Thurgood Marshall once wrote, “[t]he Constitution protects against the compelled disclosure of political associations and beliefs.”
Why do we suddenly throw that principle out the window as soon as we come to political donations? A donation, like a vote, is a way to participate in the republican process. A donation, like a vote, is a free choice, an individual is not compelled by anyone to act. A donation, like a vote, is a way to express political beliefs and associate with political movements.
This is particularly true of the more modest donors. In this age of multi-million dollar Senate races and multi-billion dollar Presidential contests, can anyone truly believe that a $250 donation to a candidate or cause is designed to corrupt or bribe an office-seeker (the threshold for reporting federal donations is merely $200)? And if that’s the case, how is compelled disclosure of these donations any different from the compelled disclosure of your vote?
Furthermore, why do we tolerate it?
