Disclosure: A Delicate Balancing Act

By Blair Clarkson
Staff Writer

April 1 -- Not too long ago, finding out who donated to a political campaign often required hours of tedious sifting though reams of campaign records at the county registrar’s office.

But thanks to the Internet, for better or worse, a wealth of information -- including the names of donors of as little as $50, their professions and where they live -- is just the click of a mouse away.

Enter a zip code or a last name on websites such as opensecrets.org or fundrace.org and the records of an entire city’s political donations will pop up on the screen.

The easy access to this information has raised serious issues about the delicate balance between disclosure and privacy, as well as concerns that donors might be more hesitant to contribute knowing that detailed facts about them are so readily available.

“It’s about transparency versus privacy,” said Councilwoman Pam O’Connor. “Where does the transparency begin, and what is the people’s right to privacy?”

“If someone makes a contribution of a certain size and information about them becomes easily accessible on the Internet,” she said, “that might dampen (future) contributions.”

Others are quick to defend the need for this access and its fundamental importance to a fair electoral process.

“I think it’s absolutely necessary in a democracy to know who’s funding a campaign,” said Kelly Hayes-Raitt, political consultant and President of Coast-to-Coast Community Campaigns. “It’s not a privacy issue to make a donation to a political campaign. Making a campaign contribution is not a private act, it’s a very public act.”

“We’re all for shining the light on full disclosure,” agreed Mary Boyle, spokesperson for Common Cause, a citizen activist group that “advocates for honest, open and accountable government.”

Boyle argues that ready access to campaign finance disclosure records won’t discourage donors from contributing.

“We don’t have concerns that it would stifle people from giving,” she said. “Most people who give larger donation aren’t ashamed of it. They don’t want to hide it. All this disclosure is a good thing.”

Well, perhaps not in everyone’s eyes. One local resident, who, appropriately enough asked to remain anonymous, noted that he often donates money just under the reporting requirements to avoid having his contribution disclosed.

“If the limit is $200, I’ll give $199,” he said, “and if it’s $50, I’ll give $49. I just don’t want to end up on another list.”

Undoubtedly, this resident is not alone. Many others may fear that easy access to their contributions could result in repercussions at work, economic reprisals, threatening phone calls or even physical abuse, some experts and politicians contend.

“There may be certain professions where people are more sensitive to information being out there,” said O’Connor, noting that doctors, lawyers and accountants rely heavily on their public perception. “It might actually affect their clients.”

But privacy issues, legal experts argue, must be weighed against the need to inform the public and curb potential corruption.

“There is a reason that contributions are public and required to be disclosed,” said USC Law Professor Elizabeth Garrett, “and that reason is that disclosure reduces the possibility for corruption.”

“I think that with disclosure, there is always the risk of chilling donation,” Garrett said. “There will always be people who would prefer anonymity. And certainly the more readily the information is available the more likely people are to think twice.

“On the other hand, I think it is vital in a democracy for people to know where candidates get their money because you do get less corruption,” she said.

“In my view, even though there’s this balance, and you have to acknowledge that there are costs, I always come down on the side of very aggressive disclosure, because the benefits to a democracy are much greater,” Garrett said.

Websites such as opensecrets.org and fundrace.org, Garrett said, “make that information available to any interested citizen, instead of citizens having to rely on the media or public interest groups” to filter it down to them.

Opensecrets.org was started by The Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, non-profit research group whose work “is aimed at creating a more educated voter, an involved citizenry, and a more responsive government.”

By simply entering a zip code on the ‘Get Local!’ section of the site, anyone can access a complete list of contributions to federal candidates, PACs, and national parties, as well as the area’s ten biggest contributors and top recipients.

On the fundrace.org website, the ‘Neighbor Search’ feature encourages users to “find out who your friends and neighbors are supporting.”

Aside from the publishing donors’ names, the site also posts their addresses. That concerns O’Connor.

“It was the addresses popping up that caught my attention,” she said. “That’s the side of it that might make people have a second thought about contributing.”

Because many ordinary donors likely do not have business managers or work addresses to associate with their contributions, their home addresses end up linked to information that indicates they have hundreds or thousands of extra dollars to spend on political campaigns, potentially attracting undue attention from those looking to take advantage.