[LIVESTREAM] Anonymity and the age of nonprofit influence

Watch our event live today at 12:10 p.m. CST

The debate will be live today at 12:10 p.m. CST

A debate on the motion: Nonprofit organizations influencing government and engaging in political advocacy, including issue advertising, should be required to disclose their donors.

During the course of political debate and the development of legislation, the public often hears from organizations that influence the policy sphere and/or are involved in campaigns.

The IRS and federal and state election laws allow many of these non-profit organizations that brief lawmakers on issues, provide research and policy recommendations, lobby directly on bills, and engage in issue advertising to keep their funders secret.

Many of these nonprofits maintain that their donors’ privacy must be protected under the First Amendment and that anonymous funding of political speech can be beneficial because it encourages political participation by people concerned about retaliation for supporting controversial views.

Others, however, maintain that the First Amendment does not extend so broadly and that the law should require greater disclosure of donors’ identities and contributions to provide the public with more information and reduce the potential for corruption.

Which is correct? Should nonprofit organizations influencing government or engaging in politics be required to disclose their donors? Or would disclosing donors silence donors who fear retribution for expressing their views?