by Matt Miller
February 8, 2019
A recently concluded
trial in Denver, Colorado, centered on the right of 501(c)(3) and (c)(4)
nonprofit groups to protect their donors from being put on a government list
and having their addresses, occupations, and employers published on the
Internet. The Goldwater Institute brought the
case on behalf of two Colorado nonprofits—the Colorado Union of Taxpayers
Foundation and the TABOR Committee—to challenge a Denver ordinance that
requires groups spending more than $500 to support or oppose a Denver ballot
measure to disclose to the government the personal information of anyone who
gave them money to communicate with voters.
I will write separately
about the outcome of the trial, although I will note here that the judge ruled
against CUT and TABOR on standing grounds, and that both groups plan to appeal.
But I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight some of the most important
testimony from the trial, which documented the kinds of ideological harassment
that representatives for the plaintiffs, as well as similar free-market
nonprofits, regularly endure.
Penn Pfiffner, the
Chairman of the TABOR Committee, testified about how his property was
vandalized when he put simple political signs—two supporting candidates and one
supporting a ballot measure—in his front yard. The first time, his car was
egged the day after he put out a sign supporting a Republican politician. The
next time, his car and house were egged. The third time, a
football-sized rock was thrown through the back window of his car with such
force that it damaged the car’s dashboard when it landed. As Penn noted, “That
was when I finally got the message.” He has not displayed any yard signs since
then, even though such signs are one of the most elemental forms of political
speech.
Similarly, Marty
Neilsen, the President of the CUT Foundation, testified about how her car was
keyed the day after she put up a sign expressing support for a Republican
candidate. And two people tried to run her and her husband off the
road—complete with yelling and obscene hand gestures—after she displayed a
Trump/Pence bumper sticker on her car.
The trial concluded
with testimony from representatives from two free-market, limited government
think tanks from other states. The first, who works on “right to work” issues
nationwide, testified about how he was spat upon as he and his wife attempted
to park at an event where he would be speaking. Later, he was threatened by a
caller to NPR while he was giving an interview. The caller asked him if he
“knew what he would find when he got home tonight.” This alarmed the witness so
much that he and his employer sent a private security team to the witness’s
house to do a welfare check on his wife, who was home alone at the time.
The final witness, who
works for a state-based free-market think tank, testified to a litany of
harassment that he has endured over the years as a result of the work he does.
He produced a series of vile and obscene emails threatening him with sexual
violence. He produced a tweet wishing the witness would get a “bullet between
the eyes.” He produced a separate tweet from a state legislator—who should know
better—attempting to link his group, which works on issues like tax and
education policy, to white extremist groups. And he discussed how, recently,
his group has been subjected to a series of harassing emails and phone calls
from a local college professor. He was concerned enough about all of these
things to report the incidents to the local police department.
To be clear: None of
this is garden-variety political vitriol. People who work in the public policy
sphere expect their opponents to vehemently disagree with them, and even to
call them childish names. But they do not expect to be spat upon, have their
cars and homes vandalized, have death wished upon them, have elected officials
attempt to link them with white supremacist groups, be run off the road, or
have their staff subjected to endless, bizarre harassment from a local college
professor.
This testimony was
gripping, and it highlighted exactly why the plaintiffs brought this
case in the first place. Although they shouldn’t have to, leaders of nonprofits
know that having their name on the Internet might subject them to harassment
and intimidation. To some extent, that risk comes with the territory. But
someone giving as little as $50 to a nonprofit will have their name and address
reported to the city, to support simple speech about a local ballot measure.
These people should not have to worry about being the target of threats. That
is why the right to privately support the causes we believe in is protected by
the First Amendment and by state constitutions.
No one should suffer
vandalism, destruction of property, and physical assaults for expressing their
political beliefs, as the judge at the trial noted when he handed down his
ruling. It is simply un-American and has no place in our political discourse.
The response to someone expressing a message you disagree with is to either
ignore them, or to engage with them in a peaceful exchange of ideas.
Although the incidents
that were described during this trial didn’t make national news, they highlight
that the threat of ideological harassment and intimidation is ever-present. The
government should not be facilitating it by forcing nonprofits to disclose
their donors so that their identities, occupations, and employers can be put on
the Internet for everyone to see. By doing so, these laws invite exactly the
kind of threats, intimidation, and violence that was documented during the
trial.
Matt Miller
is a Senior Attorney at the Goldwater Institute. He represents the plaintiffs
in Colorado
Union of Taxpayers Foundation v. City of Denver.
