Dark money
Officially known as the “Stop Political Dirty Money Amendment,” if passed, the voter-driven effort will mandate the disclosure of political donors.
Former state Attorney General Terry Goddard submitted more than 285,000 signatures last month, about 25,000 more than required. As usual, there’s a court battle over whether enough of the signatures are valid. If organizers meet the high bar, voters will decide on the measure in November.
The amendment would add 1,500 words to the Arizona Constitution requiring any group attempting to influence a state election to reveal the identities of donors.
Any non-profit spending more than $10,000 in a two-year election cycle must disclose every person who contributed at least $2,500.
The language also exposes “chain donations,” where one group gives money to a second group and then perhaps to a third. All the money needs to be traced back to the source, whether it’s a big company pushing an agenda or a publicity-shy retiree quietly helping a cause she believes in.
Since this is proposed as a constitutional amendment, lawmakers wouldn’t be able to alter the byzantine regulations without voter approval. If any phrasing is unclear or misinterpreted, Arizona is quite likely stuck with it.
An understandable fear of “dirty money” opponents is the claim that money buys elections. To disprove this, one needs only to look at the 2016 presidential race. Clinton outspent Trump by nearly 2 to 1. If you include allied organizations, Democratic groups significantly outspent Republican ones. Nevertheless, Trump prevailed.
Though perhaps a well-intentioned drive for transparency, these 1,500 words of legalese do little but make government more intrusive and complex. It also will chill political involvement.
In fact, the terms “dark money” and “dirty money” portray private donations as inherently bad. But in this era of mob justice and personal retribution, privacy is critical for anyone seeking to engage in the political process.
In May, gun control advocate David Hogg organized “die ins” at Publix grocery stores because the company gave money to a candidate endorsed by the NRA. Hogg didn’t know or care that the Florida-based company had given more than $760,000 to Democratic committees since 2008, much of that money promoting candidates who strongly oppose the NRA.
Not wanting the disruption of protests and counter-protests, Publix suspended political donations of any kind. They removed themselves entirely from the political debate and both sides lost.
Goddard, et al., might not like it, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that political donations are covered under the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
Just as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay could anonymously write The Federalist Papers under the pen name “Publius,” Arizonans should be able to contribute to their pet issue without being exposed by government officials.
As the Publix case showed, activists on both sides will lose with this new amendment.
Would an up-and-coming lawyer working at a conservative firm want to give money to the ACLU or Planned Parenthood if he knows his political views will be outed to the partners? Would a restaurateur in a liberal community risk donating to the NRA or a traditional religious organization? We only need to see what happened to Chick-fil-A to answer that question.
In a 1995 decision on political speech, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” He was exactly right.
If this amendment were to take effect, it would invite harassment, dilute political dialogue, and chill both free speech and free association.
Ironically, the most prominent link on the Outlaw Dirty Money website is the donate button. If organizers succeed in their effort, Arizonans will be less likely to ever donate at all.