Beware elected officials wanting full disclosure of campaign contributions

Earlier this week, Rep. Ryan Winkler wrote in the Star Tribune in favor of the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board’s recent decision to  broaden disclosure requirements on nonprofits that work to support or oppose ballot questions. 

My column last week made the general case for how disclosure of individual names and contributions can infringe on First Amendment rights to speech, association, and privacy of belief.  I noted the real risk of harassment when individuals speak out on various issues.   In a follow-up blog, I noted how it seems to be conservatives that are the most likely to be harassed these days, whether the issue is gay marriage, right-to-work, affirmative action or something else. 

Winkler was specifically responding to John Helmberger, the chairman of the Minnesota for Marriage campaign, who outlined the evidence of harassment targeted at supporters of traditional marriage.  Helmberger referenced a disturbing report from the Heritage Foundation that documented reprisals against Californians who supported Proposition 8—a marriage amendment—including harassing phone calls, church vandalism, death threats against the mayor of Fresno, and businesses subject to picketing, protests and boycotts simply due to employing people that made donations supporting Proposition 8. 

Unfortunately, Winkler never addressed the difficult issue at hand—how to balance campaign finance disclosure laws with the First Amendment.  Instead, he concluded with this “rule of thumb”:

Never trust a well-funded group hiring lawyers to hide information from the public.  Especially if their only argument is the need to protect the privacy of donors whose donations are already safely hidden.

Allow me to suggest another rule of thumb: Never invest any confidence in any words elected officials say in support of broad campaign finance disclosure laws.  The fact is Minnesota’s disclosure laws protect the re-election efforts of incumbents like Rep. Winkler.  The requirement to disclose the names of anyone giving more than $100 deters giving to a candidate that might challenge Winkler.  As James Huffman explains in the Wall Street Journal, “Contributors … know that supporting the challenger can, should the challenger lose, have consequences in terms of future attention to their interests. Of course no incumbent will admit to issuing threats or seeking retribution, but the perception that both exist is widespread.”