Justice Thomas Says No to Disclosure, Blames Internet


Noted without response. From Justice Thomas’ dissent wherein he states that the court should eliminate all campaign finance disclosure requirements:

…Disclaimer and disclosure requirements enable private citizens and elected officials to implement political strategies specifically calculated to curtail campaign-related activity and prevent the lawful, peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights.

Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—“the advent of the Internet” enables “prompt disclosure of expenditures,” which “provide[s]” political opponents “with the information needed” to intimidate and retaliate against their foes. Ante , at 55. Thus, “disclosure permits citizens … to react to the speech of [their political opponents] in a proper”—or undeniably improper —“way” long before a plaintiff could prevail on an as-applied challenge.

Please let Justice Thomas know what you think about his opinion on disclosure, transparency and the Internet in the comments.

Categorized in:
Share This:
  • Right.

    This whole worry about threats is a total stalking horse. So what if I know Person X is responsible for Speech Y? The alternative is knowing that Org X is responsible for Speech Y.

    I can target some random worker at the org or corporation just as easily as I can target someone specific.

    Refusing disclosures just shifts the target but doesn’t reduce the chance of it happening.

  • Is screaming into a hurricane considered threatening the hurricane?

  • So if I read that correctly:

    Disclosure allows *other* people to use their Free Speech rights effectively as opposed to screaming into the hurricane.

    Makes. Total. Sense.

  • I’m guessing this has to do with the people that boycotted that Mormon woman’s restaurant over the gay marriage vote.