State Agents Threaten, “Expose your donors… Or else!”

Agents of the State declared, “Expose your donors, or face penalties.”

Imagine that Congress is about to vote on the Read the Bills Act. So many members of Congress have voiced support that it has a realistic chance of passing.

Of course, you’d expect Agenda Setters by Downsize DC to send you a message. That email would urge you to pick up the phone and call your representative to get it over the finish line.

NOTE: You might see this amicus brief message TWICE. We plan to share this message with both Agenda Setters by Downsize DC and Zero Aggression Project subscribers.

But Agenda Setters has a sister organization, the Zero Aggression Project (technically, Downsize DC Foundation). ZAP has a strictly public education mission.

So, imagine that ZAP publishes a research report. There’s nothing unusual about that. Can you imagine a report titled, The Hidden Cost of Not Reading the Bill: How Congressional Negligence Produces Bad Law and Unseen Harm?

Then, something shocking happens!

Because we published that particular report, Zero Aggression Project gets a nasty letter from a government agency. After years of providing public education, it says we violated the law by publishing that report. Now, we must register with this agency, report our expenditures, and disclose our list of donors to them.

We would naturally refuse this order to expose our donors. It’s a violation of the Constitution.

Still, such letters always come with a threat. If our ZAP team didn’t comply…

We could be punitively fined.

For the Alaska Policy Forum, this story isn’t a hypothetical. It’s reality.

Expose Your Donors, Or Else

The Alaska Policy Forum (APF) is a nonprofit that promotes limited government. In 2020, the state of Alaska had a ballot measure proposing ranked-choice voting.

The APF published two press releases, a video, and a blog post criticizing ranked-choice voting. All told, they spent $643 on those messages. And this next part is key…

They never mentioned the ballot measure by name, nor did they encourage people to vote one way or another.

In law, those two things are called bright-line tests.

But that didn’t matter to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). They arbitrarily decided that APF’s issue advocacy was actually ballot campaign activity. Why? Merely because APF published materials about ranked-choice voting while there was a ranked-choice voting measure on the ballot.

The APF was found to be in violation of campaign finance laws and ordered to disclose its donors.

The APF appealed the ruling. Despite the absence of evidence that the APF had violated a bright-line test, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the APOC’s radical and arbitrary ruling.

That’s unconstitutional

Now, both of the Downsize DC “sister groups” want to file an amicus brief petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case… Alaska Policy Forum v. Alaska Public Offices Commission.

You may disagree with the APF’s stance on ranked-choice voting, but there is a higher principle at stake. Everyone must be free to publish their piece. That isn’t just our opinion; it’s a founding principle of this country, enshrined in our First Amendment right to Freedom of the Press.

In an age of doxxing – the malicious act of publicly revealing private information about a person online (address, phone number, etc.) to incite harassment or fear – it’s not difficult to imagine why donor anonymity is a vital right of human security. Fortunately…

Donor anonymity is one of the qualities of the Free Press right. In law, it is a “prior restraint” to require people to obtain a sort of license – permission from the government – to publish or broadcast their message. Our amicus curiae brief will make that argument.

To be clear: The Alaska case wasn’t decided on prior restraint or anonymity grounds. That’s why we believe our brief – our Free Press argument – is a necessity in this case.

This case is also important because if courts can arbitrarily decide what qualifies as campaign activity, every nonprofit in the country is in danger of having to turn over their donor list when there is a ballot measure or vote.

Or groups like Downsize DC could be forced to just shut up.

This ruling requires nonprofits to make the impossible decision between advancing their mission and protecting their donors.

When will the core issues that a nonprofit’s members and followers care about come up for a vote? No nonprofit can predict such things.

But they shouldn’t be cowed into silence.

Next steps

We’re drafting a bold, principled amicus brief to carry these arguments to the Justices. To complete this mission, we need you.

To be successful, we usually need at least one $1,000 donor or two $500 donors, along with about three dozen more donors of various amounts. Please choose which role is right for you.

The average contribution is $55, but any amount you give will help. You can also start a monthly pledge, which enables us to say yes to future briefs.

I Support the Brief

Note: We’re requesting your support via Downsize DC Foundation’s “Zero Aggression Project.” By using the ZAP form, your donation can be tax-deductible.

Thank you in advance for your participation!

Set your own agenda,

Jim Babka, President
Agenda Setters by Downsize DC

P.S. The fact that you’re reading this postscript guarantees you’ll know something few people understand. Free press is separate and distinct from free speech. When a body is writing a governing document, they carefully pore over and deliberate on every word. Inside the First Amendment, there are three textual cues that make the intentional distinction clear.

First, the two rights are listed separately. Second, each is preceded by the article “the.” Third, they are separated by the conjunction “or.” Combined with “Congress shall make no law,” the Free Press right means that Who helped publish something is none of the government’s business.

I watched our attorney, the late Herb Titus, make this argument (and others) when we took (Ron) Paul v. FEC to the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ve repeatedly argued in several amicus curiae briefs over the years for this inherent right to anonymity. I’ll list two examples. We did it in Doe v. Reed (2010). We did it last year in First Choice vs. Platkin. Our Alaska brief is needed, and we’re the right ones to deliver it. Please join us now.

Today’s Action: Contribute to fund an amicus brief in the case Alaska Policy Forum v. Alaska Public Offices Commission