Dueling editorials in the American News over transparency regarding independent political groups. The News opines the independent groups such as the South Dakota Conservative Action Council owe it to the public to release where their money comes from:
Take for example two of the statewide ballot initiatives coming up during the November election. The initiatives are supported by dollars that come from out-of-state multi-millionaires and conservative organizations. In neither instance can the dollars be specifically traced back to their initial sources because the tax-exempt groups - American Entrepreneurs for Security Reform and the S.D. Conservative Action Council - decline to reveal their sources of funding. There is no law requiring them to release that information.
Lee Breard from SDCAC begs to differ:
First and foremost, contributions to the SD CAC are not kept strictly confidential because we feel we have something to hide. They are kept confidential because the SD CAC is a 501c4 non-profit organization, which means that - by federal law and state statutes - the right to privacy of our contributors is considered sacrosanct. This stringent protection of the right of a citizen to be quietly and privately benevolent dates back to the teachings of the gospel according to Matthew 6:1-6 and 16-18 and our Republic's founding.
The fact is, the SD CAC's many radical competitors and detractors to the left operate under the same federal and state guidelines we do. And as long as they follow the letter and the spirit of the law, as we do, we would be the first to defend their right to pursue both their mission and the privacy of those who support their cause.
You heard it from the SDCAC. They want to keep their donors private because Jesus said so.
There is an obvious middle ground here. There are competing interests in this issue. First, as a rule people should have the right to engage in political activity, which is what donating is, without the government setting conditions. Public disclosure is a condition put on political activity: you may contribute, but all your neighbors will know it. Second, there is a legitimate concern that donors will face negative consequences because of their contributions, and so perhaps it is best if that is kept secret. On the other hand, the public has the right to know who is trying to influence the legislative process, especially directly through the initiative process. For example, perhaps we should know if out-of-state money behind certain initiatives.
The solution. Who knows. Perhaps we could limit our calls for public disclosure to groups behind ballot questions, as their attempted influence is quite direct, and also limit disclosure to contributions over a certain amount (I throw out the number of $500 just to start the bidding), thereby protecting John Q. Donor.
Recent Comments