Search This Blog

About this Blog

During the semester, I shall post course material and students will comment on it. Students are also free to comment on any aspect of American politics, either current or historical. There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges. This blog is on the open Internet, so post nothing that you would not want a potential employer to see. Syllabus: http://gov20h.blogspot.com/2023/08/draft-introduction-to-american-politics.html

Sunday, November 1, 2009

New Issue for SCOTUS

This NY Times article points out some interesting issue raised by a Washington State referendum over gay rights. Do petition signatures count as public records? Or does publishing them violate the right to privacy implied by the Bill of Rights?


Does anyone know of any previous cases that have taken on the issue of public disclosure contending with privacy rights?

1 comment:

Anne Rynearson said...

A related issue of anonymity in political speech came up in one of our assignments - including references to Talley v. California (1960) which found that "an author's decision to remain anonymous...is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

The court has not found a similar right to anonymity in donations to political candidates. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the court supported "required disclosures about the level of financial support a candidate has received from various sources" under the belief that "though money may 'talk,' its speech is less specific, less personal, and less provocative...and as a result, when money supports an unpopular viewpoint it is less likely to precipitate retaliation." The law in question under Buckley, however, The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, "regulates only candidate elections, not referenda or other issue based ballot measures." Presumably the risk of retaliation rises when public disclosure of support is required on specific issues rather than general candidates - an issue in the case in Washington. (above from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html)

One study in states with ballot issues found that "mandatory disclosure [of political donation activity] appears to enjoy support among citizens...until the disclosed information includes their own personal information—'disclosure for thee, but not for me'...more than 56 percent of respondents opposed disclosure when it includes their name, address and contribution amount, and opposition [rises] to more than 71 percent when an employer’s name must be disclosed.

The Institute for Justice has an article entitled "The Danger of Disclosure" which explores the issue further at http://www.ij.org/index.php?Itemid=165&id=2629&option=com_content&task=view