Steven,

 

An interesting question.  As Silence Dogood, Publius, A Federal Farmer, George Kennan and others could point out, there are plenty of reasons why a speaker may wish to remain anonymous and why revelation of their identities would cause them to silence themselves.  In addition to the possibility of outright harassment and violence, the speaker may wish to have their argument stand on its own and not be overshadowed by the person making the argument.  Some speakers have positions that would prevent them from speaking publicly on certain topics.  Some do not wish to be seen as using their position in society to push a particular view.  Some don’t wish to alienate people for financial reasons.  Most of these reasons have little to do with the speaker’s confidence in his or her message and more to do with the negative consequences that arise from revelation of the speaker’s identity on either the ability to make an effective argument or on the financial security or health and well-being of the speaker.

 

Regardless of the reason, when the government mandates that one’s political activity be tracked and reported to the government does cause people to silence themselves.  It is therefore a government action that causes self-censorship and limits political expression.  It’s not that people don’t want speakers to stand by their views, it’s that we believe that free expression allows one to speak and remain anonymous.  To the extent that I wish to have someone “stand by their views,” that does not allow me to use the power of government to effectively stop the speech of those who do not wish to do so.

 

Sincerely,

 

A Northwest Lawyer (a.k.a. Bill Maurer)    

 

 

Those are two separate issues:

1. What reform leaders say (not monolithic).
2. What Sen. Schumer says.

The fascinating thing on some threads in the recent week or two is that anti-reformers ask others on the list to own the speech of others. Maybe that’s a new approach: “free association speech”


On 4/29/11 12:04 PM, "Sean Parnell" <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:

There are two separate issues:
 
1.       Anonymous money in politics is bad

2.       Disclosure doesn’t chill political speech

 
My point was largely directed at the second issue. I’ve heard repeatedly from the ‘reform’ side that disclosure doesn’t chill anybody’s speech. Am I now to understand that, in fact, disclosure can indeed chill political speech by limiting the willingness of citizens to support particular speech, that Senator Schumer was right when he touted disclosure as having a “deterrent” effect?
 
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA  22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax
 

From: David Levine [mailto:davidalanlevine@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:01 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

Mr. Parnell,



I don't think the issue is whether omitting the identities of donors is an effective campaign practice -- I think substantial evidence from the 2010 elections, including from American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS donors, indicates this is a way to successfully win campaigns for a party or candidate. Rather, the issue is whether large amounts of anonymous money should play a substantial role in elections. However, until the "rules of the game change" (requiring the disclosure of donors), so to speak, there is little to no incentive for  candidates and/or independent groups, regardless of their views on money and politics, to effectively handicap themselves while seeking (or assisting someone else seek) office.



David


On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:

Many of you have no doubt read Jeanne Allen’s excellent piece in Politico <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53905.html>  revealing the creation of two independent Democratic groups that will be active in the 2012 election cycle. Both of course will accept unlimited donations, and similar to the pairing of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, one of the Democratic groups will disclose all donors, while the other is a 501(c)4 that does not..
 
I don’t find anything particularly hypocritical about the decision to create these groups – whether one likes it or not, they are part of the political process now, and I can’t fault even the most diehard Democratic ‘reformer’ for deciding not to unilaterally disarm. If Republicans are raising and spending big bucks to promote their favored candidates, it would be foolish of Democrats not to do likewise.
 
But I am curious about the decision of Priorities USA to not to disclose donors to the 501(c)4 group. I’ve heard repeatedly from the ‘reform’ community that only nefarious interests would have a need to not disclose donors, and that there is no chilling of speech that occurs through disclosure. If that’s true – and while I have my doubts, ‘reformers’ do not seem to share them – then why would a group run by ‘reformers’ decide not to disclose their donors?
 
I’ve written more here, in case anyone is interested: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/why-are-reformers-making-donor-secrecy-a-priority
 
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA  22310
(703) 894-6800 <tel:%28703%29%20894-6800>  phone
(703) 894-6813 <tel:%28703%29%20894-6813>  direct
(703) 894-6811 <tel:%28703%29%20894-6811>  fax
 

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
 

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law