In Montana, an Election Law Chills Free Speech and Privacy Rights

[EasyAce]

The governor boasts about the DISCLOSE Act, an assault on the right of free association.
By David Herbst
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448257/montana-disclose-act-election-law-right-free-association-privacy-governor-steve-bullock

Writing in the New York Times recently, Montana governor Steve Bullock sounded awfully proud of his legacy of
shutting down privacy rights and chilling free speech. Now that the special election for the U.S. House seat is over and
the eyes of the world might linger on Montana for a moment, I thought now would be a good time to discuss one
particularly insidious product of the governor’s legacy: the DISCLOSE Act.

The law, which the governor cites warmly as a tool for fighting “the corrupting influence of money in politics,” is in practice
little more than a way to guarantee that politicians, who already have the loudest microphone, can shut down opposing
viewpoints and make it harder for citizens to hold lawmakers accountable. The truth is no easier to find when the powerful
have the only microphone.

Signed into law by Bullock in 2015, the DISCLOSE (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections)
Act limits “electioneering communications” within two months of the start of voting and requires non-profits to register their
donors’ personal information with the government if the organization has the audacity to engage in issue advocacy too close
to an election, specifically if that advocacy mentions a politician. That’s right, politicians don’t want criticism, and they are
trying to stop independent criticism using this law . . .

. . . Why does this matter? Because laws that require the public disclosure of donors’ private information chill free speech,
as those who wish to support organizations that hold government accountable are exposed to threats of violence. The New
York Civil Liberties Union is fighting a similar disclosure law in that state, where its members have been subjected to
vandalism and death threats.

And these laws don’t work anyway. Study after study has shown that such restrictions do not result in less corruption or a
more satisfied electorate. So, we’re losing freedom and gaining nothing.

Ever since the landmark Supreme Court decision in NAACP v. Alabama (1958), non-profits have had the right to protect their
donors’ privacy, and with good reason. The racist politicians challenging the NAACP’s heroic work were not interested in
canvassing the neighborhood. They wanted to put the organization out of business. They wanted names and addresses for
nefarious reasons. The Supreme Court stood fast against such intimidation.

Individuals should not have to fear violent reprisals for exercising their First Amendment rights, in segregation-era Alabama
or in the Montana of today. That Governor Bullock takes pride in his crusade against free speech should be unnerving for all
Americans who value free speech and freedom of association.