This piece was originally published in The Hill on May 10, 2026.

Rozonda “Chilli” Thomas of musical act TLC is no stranger to the spotlight — but it’s usually for her talent, not for what should be private political giving.

All that recently changed when records of her modest contributions to right-leaning groups were widely disseminated, creating significant backlash that threatens to overshadow her career.

Although this story prompted significant media attention because of Chilli’s fame, the scenario that ensnared her could befall anyone who contributes to political candidates or causes. Sadly, it is easier than ever to track and target Americans for participating in the political process. Even those who disagree with Chilli’s choices should be alarmed, because these laws put them in the crosshairs, too.

Under current law, if you give more than $200 to a candidate during an election cycle or committee in a calendar year, that donation — including your name, occupation, employer and home address — is placed in a permanent public database. And when you give via a conduit entity like WinRed or ActBlue, there is a zero-dollar threshold for publicizing your personal identifying details, due to a reporting requirement that the organization I work for thinks is unconstitutional.

The result is a system that exposes ordinary donors’ personal information as though they wield special influence. In reality, that exposure serves no useful purpose.

Disclosure rules hail from a different era — one where accessing campaign finance records meant a trip to a government office, a formal request, and a fair amount of time flipping through paper files. That logistical friction acted as a natural limit.

Today, that friction is gone. Anyone with an internet connection can instantly search, compile and broadcast donor information to the world. What was designed to be a transparency tool has become something far more sweeping: a system of mass exposure.

Activists, potential employers, or online mobs can use these databases to single out individuals for their views. The major rationale for these laws is the “informational interest” of voters — that is, the provision of information to help voters make informed decisions. Knowing that a billionaire poured millions into an election may tell voters something useful, but knowing that the average Joe gave more than a couple of hundred does not.

That kind of information is political voyeurism.

Providing fodder for tabloid journalism gossip isn’t, to say the least, a legitimate government interest. And in today’s environment, that kind of exposure carries real risks. There is no shortage of stories about people who have suffered serious social and professional consequences from having their political giving exposed.

At a time when civic participation is already under strain, expanding the public exposure of ordinary political activity risks discouraging it. People are less likely to give modest sums to support candidates if doing so means putting their personal information and their beliefs on display.

Fortunately, even transparency advocates concede that current thresholds, which haven’t changed since 1980, are outdated. If you adjusted for inflation since then, the disclosure minimum would top $800.

That should be the starting point for reform. Raising disclosure thresholds would not eliminate transparency. It would refocus it where it belongs: on large contributions. Former Obama White House counsel Robert F. Bauer suggested increasing the threshold to $2,700.

Reform would restore a degree of privacy to ordinary political participation — something the First Amendment has long protected.

Today, it’s Chilli on the chopping block. Next time, it could be a restaurant owner, a teacher, a nurse, or you. For the simple act of giving to candidates or even political causes, Americans can find themselves targeted by people seeking to punish them for daring to hold the “wrong” views.

We don’t require citizens to publicly disclose their beliefs before they cast a ballot. We should be cautious about requiring similar exposure when they give modest amounts to support those beliefs.