CCP Chairman Brad Smith observed in a recent blog entry, “While some disclosure may be necessary to satisfy compelling government interests, that recognition is a far cry from holding that any and all disclosure must be a good thing.” Indeed, excessive disclosure can invade privacy and discourage political participation. An excellent example can be found in a recent case by the Institute for Justice.
Parker North is a subdivision of about 300 homes in unincorporated Douglas County, Colorado. Recently the Town of Parker began debating the annexation of Parker North. Naturally, the issue is one of considerable interest to Parker North residents; many of them live there precisely because they did not want to live in the Town of Parker. As IJ reports, “What followed was a classic American political debate”; citizens walked door-to-door, sent letter, discussed the issue over email, and printed yard signs. There were no official organizations, just neighbors talking with neighbors, doing precisely what we would hope them to do as good citizens.
So imagine their surprise when six of the opponents of annexation had a legal complaint filed against them for violating Colorado campaign finance law. How could they have run afoul of campaign finance laws just by printing up some yard signs? According to the Institute for Justice, who is helping them challenge the law, quite easily:
Under Colorado’s campaign finance laws, any time two or more people spend or receive more than $200 to “support or oppose” a ballot issue or question, they automatically become an “issue committee” whether they know it or not. Issue committees must register with the State and may only fund their “campaign activities” from a separate bank account opened solely for that purpose. They must list the ballot issues or questions they intend to support or oppose on their registration statements and must not support or oppose any issues that are not listed on their statement. Issue committees must track all expenses and report them to the Secretary of State. That means keeping track of every piece of printing paper and ink cartridge that goes into printing their letters or fact sheets to their neighbors, and reporting every lawn sign they purchase from a printer or the cardboard, wooden dowels, and magic markers they use to create them. Issue committees must also keep track of every dollar that goes to fund their activities, and must report to the Secretary of State the identities and addresses of anyone who contributes more than $20. For those who contribute more than $100, the issue committee must disclose their employers as well. “Contributions” include more than just cash. Donations of goods must also be reported, and also count toward the $200 threshold that defines an issue committee. For people like the residents of Parker North, this means that just getting together and deciding to share the costs of printing up yard signs can qualify them as an issue committee.
How valuable is this disclosure? What corruption are we staving off, in a ballot initiative no less, by disclosing the identity of someone who contributes $21 to this “committee” in exchange for some yard signs? It seems unlikely that anything of value is gained by making this information available. What’s clear, however, is that something has been lost. Excessive disclosure raises the cost of participating in politics and, thus, discourages political involvement. In Parker North, an email listserv that once buzzed with chatter about annexation has gone silent; citizens have stopped speaking about an important local issue because they fear getting hauled into court for failure to disclose their “committee” status.
It’s easy to fall into the “disclosure trap” and assume that more is always better. We must remember that there is no regulation for which more is ALWAYS better; there will always be a point of diminishing returns. So the next time someone advocates greater disclosure, remember the citizens of Parker North. You may then decide that we should be removing barriers to civic involvement, not building more of them. Or, as they say at the Institute for Justice, “In America, the only thing you should need in order to speak out about politics is an opinion.”
For more information on the case, visit IJ’s webpage: Parker North, Colorado Free Speech
