[ad_1]
A poll worker handles ballots for the midterm election at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Elections Center (MCTEC) in Phoenix on October 25.
Photo:
olivier touron/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Democrats have failed to pass restrictions on political speech in Congress, so they’re taking the fight to state ballots. The latest salvo is a little-noticed measure in Arizona that would require disclosure of the “original source of monies used for campaign media spending.”
The Voters’ Right to Know Act, or Proposition 211, would require organizations that address political issues during an election season to disclose the identity of all donors who give more than $5,000, “regardless of whether the monies passed through one or more intermediaries.” The ballot language avers that the people of Arizona “affirm their desire” to stop “dark money.”
Most Arizona voters have heard little about the measure, since local opponents haven’t put up much of a fight. Ballot measures about transparency in elections tend to do well with voters who haven’t focused on the issue before they get to the voting booth.
Transparency and sunshine are happy words, but in reality disclosure laws have become a weapon used by the left to intimidate conservatives from engaging in politics. Groups trawl records for names and then organize social-media campaigns to harass and discourage donors. Americans looking to participate in campaigns can, and often do, see their names dragged through the mud. Many donors decline to engage, and political speech is chilled before it even happens.
Proposition 211 says donors to any group that “promotes, supports, attacks or opposes” a candidate within six months or an election or any public communication that refers to a candidate within 90 days of a primary would have their identities publicly disclosed. That would easily include any grassroots groups that advocate on single issues if they so much as mention the name of a candidate up for election.
The measure would also cover money spent on “research, design, production, polling, data analytics, mailing or social media list acquisition or any other activity conducted in preparation for or in conjunction with [other political communications].” That’s our emphasis, and wow. “Any other activity” could mean, well, anything. “People who give $5,000 can take care of themselves,” former Arizona Attorney General
Terry Goddard
told Tucson.com. “I’m sorry, that’s just the way it is.”
We haven’t found the part of the First Amendment that says it doesn’t apply to people with more than $5,000 to spend on politics. If the measure passes, it will run into a thicket of lawsuits challenging its constitutionality as well as how it conflicts with Arizona’s state constitution. Arizona’s federal lawsuits go up to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court ruled last year in AFP v. Bonta that “the deterrent effect” of disclosure rules is “real and pervasive.”
It sure is. Arizona voters can do a public service by nixing this at the ballot box.
Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
[ad_2]
Source link
(This article is generated through the syndicated feeds, Financetin doesn’t own any part of this article)
