By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President
October 22, 2010
We all cherish our First Amendment right to speak freely - especially when it comes to politics. Because of the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, we can participate in a town hall meeting, write a blog, host a radio show, publish a book or hand out pamphlets that reflect our views.
When we listen to political speech, our democratic system places the burden on us to sort out fact from fiction and trustworthy sources from untrustworthy ones. But, because of information overload and partisan sniping, it can be hard to know who or what to believe.
Hence, the growing support for political transparency. As I noted in a post last January, transparency regulations for different industries have exposed corruption and made politicians, business leaders and other influential people more accountable. In many cases, transparency has likely prevented bad behavior in the first place.
Yet support for transparency is not unanimous among politically active people and organizations. That's because this country also has a long tradition of protecting anonymous speech - one that pre-dates the U.S. Constitution and was common in 18th century British politics. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, for instance, used a pseudonym when they wrote the Federalist Papers.
The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that Americans - within certain restrictions - have the right to anonymous speech. In a much-cited 1995 ruling, the court held in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission that anonymity is "a shield from the tyranny of the majority" because it can protect unpopular people from retaliation and unpopular ideas from suppression. While noting that this anonymity can be abused, the court emphasized that "our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."
It's a difficult issue, and the court has acknowledged that in several written opinions. On the one hand, the court sees the public benefit in preserving anonymous speech. On the other hand, it also recognizes that disclosure can make influential political players more accountable.
The public, to be sure, is even more conflicted than the Supreme Court. In a new poll commissioned by the Center for Competitive Politics, respondents felt strongly that their political involvement was their own business:
- Only 24% agreed that "my friends, neighbors, friends, co-workers, and strangers have a right to know what organizations I contribute to."
- Even fewer - 19% - believed they had the right to know similar information about others.
- Only 28% agreed that people who give money to advocacy groups that run political ads should have their names, home addresses, employers, etc., reported to the government and posted online.
At the same time, respondents differentiated between the rights of individuals and organizations to engage in anonymous speech. When asked about a proposal before Congress to expand disclaimer rules for interest groups running political ads, 68% said the new requirements would help them better understand and judge an ad's accuracy and credibility.
In the name of transparency, Democrats in Congress this past summer proposed the DISCLOSE Act, which they marketed as a "cure" for the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United vs. FEC case. In that decision, the court upheld the right of corporations, unions and advocacy groups to make unlimited independent expenditures to support or oppose federal candidates.
The DISCLOSE Act, which passed the House but failed once in the Senate, would create new disclosure rules for political advertising and put restrictions on government contractors and firms that are partially foreign-owned. The measure would also exempt unions and advocacy groups such as the NRA from regulation. The bill's sponsors, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have discussed a stripped-down version that would be free of the exemptions and restrictions.
The Senate is voting on the original bill again this week, but it's hard to imagine it will get enough votes to pass. Its opponents argue that the bill had more to do with partisan politics than with transparency.
Nevertheless, concern persists about corporate and special interest funding of election advertising - whether contributions are made publicly or anonymously. As Target and other corporate contributors to the Minnesota Forward campaign learned several months ago, even disclosing a contribution doesn't necessarily make it less controversial. Transparency is not just about complying with disclosure laws; it's about having an open dialogue with stakeholders.
In this environment, companies and associations should develop transparency policies for employees, shareholders and others interested in knowing how the organization spends political dollars. (For brief examples of firms that communicate these issues well, check out my post from Sept. 23, 2009.)
But just as important, public affairs professionals should be sensitive to individuals' expectations about their privacy. For example:
- Tell PAC and grassroots supporters what you're doing with their contact information and whether you track political engagement.
- Be sure PAC contributors understand their donations are reportable and can be viewed by others.
- Remind senior executives that details about their personal, direct contributions to candidates - which are also open to the public - may "make a statement" about the company and its political beliefs.
Don't expect this privacy vs. transparency paradox to disappear anytime soon. With confidence in government and business at a low tide, people want to protect their own rights to engage in politics anonymously, but don't necessarily trust big companies or advocacy groups to do the same.
Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.
