The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) filed an amicus brief today in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a campaign finance case that will be argued before the Supreme Court later this spring. The Supreme Court will decide whether an independent group engaged in non-campaign communications must disclose their donors.
“The government has no anti-corruption or informational interest in the disclosure of non-campaign speech. Issue discussion among citizens is protected through anonymity,” said Stephen M. Hoersting, the Vice Chairman of CCP. “While there is a risk candidates may change positions once elected to reward large contributors, issues don’t change once enacted. Citizens learn nothing about the merits of a filibuster or a tax proposal by knowing if a neighbor donated money to run ads for or against it – and corrupt officials on the opposing side would learn too much.”
The FEC sought to apply disclosure requirements and certain restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to Citizens United, an advocacy group that planned to broadcast a documentary entitled “Hillary: The Movie” and ads for the film. The FEC determined that Citizens United must report the identities of its donors even though the agency found that the ads were not the functional equivalent of express campaign advocacy (as the court recently defined in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, a landmark 2007 decision). CCP’s brief argues that the FEC was wrong to require disclosure of donors to Citizens United.
“Recent history shows that the danger of official and unofficial retaliation is growing, and the chilling effect it has on speech is real,” said Bradley A. Smith, CCP’s Chairman and a former FEC Chairman. “Mandatory disclosure in an internet age is allowing blacklists to form more quickly than ever, complaints to be filed, and donors to causes they believe in for personal or religious reasons to be harassed, intimidated, or even forced out of their jobs.”
“The purpose of disclosure laws is to permit citizens to monitor their government,” Hoersting said. “It is not to permit the government to monitor citizens, or to foster private boycotts and harassment of citizens who engage in issue advocacy.”
To read the brief, click the link below:
