Protecting diversity, debate in Illinois depends on respecting donor privacy

People who support popular opinions have little to lose from having their support for those ideas known. It’s the people who are challenging the status quo – like the NAACP during the civil-rights movement – who have to be concerned about harassment and retaliation for their views.

Should nonprofit organizations that take positions on policy issues be forced to tell the government the names of their donors?

Some politicians and activist groups think so. They claim it would help “get money out of politics” and give the public more information.

But in fact, forcing nonprofits to disclose their donors would chill free speech and free association, reduce competition in the marketplace for political ideas, and help entrench the political status quo.

If nonprofits are forced to disclose their donors, it won’t just affect those organizations – it will affect you and your privacy if you ever donate to a nonprofit. The organizations you support would have to give the government your name, your address and how much you’ve given to them. Then the government would put your information in an online database that anyone could search.

Armed with this information, people who don’t like the causes you support would be able to harass you, intimidate you and retaliate against you.

This threat isn’t just hypothetical. For too many people in America’s history, it’s been real.

For example, in the 1950s, the state of Alabama tried to force the NAACP to reveal the names and addresses of its members, which would have subjected those members to harassment, intimidation or even violence, and would have subjected any businesses they owned to boycotts. The government knew this; it wanted to force the NAACP to disclose its members precisely because it wanted to destroy the organization, which was fighting the state’s violations of black people’s civil rights.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the state couldn’t force the NAACP to reveal its members because it would prevent those people from exercising their right to freely associate to advance their beliefs.

The Jim Crow era is long over, but mandatory reporting of donations still threatens people’s freedom of association – and their livelihoods – today.

For example, when the campaign in support of California’s Proposition 8 disclosed a $100 contribution from restaurant manager Margie Christoffersen, as California law required, people harassed her and boycotted her restaurant, and she ultimately resigned from her job.

In West Virginia, coal-mining engineer Jean Cochenour alleges that she lost her job when she didn’t make contributions to the Republican candidates her employer’s CEO supported.

So what would happen if the government didn’t just require disclosure of contributions to campaigns and candidates, but also required it for all donations to any cause? Would a person who works in a union shop feel comfortable donating to a group that supports Right-to-Work laws? Would a person who lives in a conservative community feel comfortable giving money to an organization that supports same-sex marriage?

The answers to these questions are obvious. Forced government reporting would have a chilling effect: It would cause many people to not contribute to causes at all rather than have evidence of their personal views permanently available for their bosses, their neighbors and the entire world to see.

If people become afraid to give money to organizations that engage in advocacy on important issues, that means there will be less speech on those issues – and it means that new and controversial opinions in particular will be put at a disadvantage in the marketplace of ideas.

After all, people who support dominant, popular opinions generally have little to lose from having their support for those ideas known. In general, it’s people who are challenging the status quo – like the NAACP during the civil-rights movement – who have to be concerned about harassment and retaliation for their views.

People who want to force nonprofits to disclose their donors often suggest that private giving just serves the interests of the rich and powerful, but often the opposite is true. A rich person like Michael Bloomberg, for example, can say whatever he wants about any issue without much fear of retaliation from anyone – his wealth and status aren’t in any danger. It’s the ordinary, nonwealthy person who could lose his job or otherwise have his life disrupted for supporting controversial causes.

In this way, mandatory government reporting of contributions to nonprofits would protect established, powerful interests and the status quo, and it would stifle the vibrant marketplace of ideas the First Amendment exists to protect.

With its stagnant, corrupt political culture, Illinois in particular needs more debate with more people participating. The last thing it needs is more legal protection for political leaders who already do everything they can – from gerrymandering to keeping term limits off the ballot to imposing campaign-contribution limits on everyone but themselves – to suppress people who would challenge them and maintain their positions of power.

So when the push to abolish private giving inevitably comes to Illinois, people should think about who would really be harmed and who would really benefit. They should see through the “good government” rhetoric that will be used to promote it, and they should demand that the government continue to respect the privacy rights of people who want to support the ideas that matter to them.