Skip to main content

Free Speech Blacklists Pose a Threat to Democracy


Many second amendment supporters fear that one day, gun control advocates will use state gun registries as a shopping list to find and steal all the privately-owned guns. These fears seem well-founded, especially in light of recent comments by certain candidates for the presidency. But there is another kind of registry we should be just as concerned about: free speech registries. Does that concept sound familiar? Perhaps not. It’s terrible branding, if you're a proponent of such measures. Much better to stoke public fears with words like “dark money.” But make no mistake, when politicians and special interest groups talk about donor disclosure for nonprofits, this is what they envision – a list of people against whom they can retaliate for speech they dislike – a blacklist. 

When a nonprofit interferes with your grand political scheme, it’s easier to bully their individual donors than it is the full time employees. Employees don’t have to fear for their employment if they expound unpopular views - they are paid to do so. But people who agree with those views and just want to take part by becoming “members” of an organization are relatively easy to intimidate. Organization employees were also aware when they took the job that they would be in the spotlight, and may be the focus of unflattering publicity. Donors and members likely have very different expectations - namely that they will have the right to disclose their membership or their giving to friends and family, or the right to keep their charitable causes private. They may be punished by an employer for creating bad press. They may be ostracized in their community. 

This issue should not be confused with campaign contribution disclosures. If it were up to me, I would allow unlimited donations to any candidate so long as it was disclosed. I don't care if a candidate is backed by a single, large donor. I do care if they are secretly backed by one or a few large donors. But that isn’t the issue here. True issue advocacy (think Heritage Foundation, the ACLU, or Oklahoma Second Amendment Association) should not require disclosure of donors. These citizens have a fundamental, God-given right to speak. These are the government watchdogs - those who root out corruption.  

This is not a partisan issue, it's a power issue. Nationally, one party tends to favor free speech registration, while the other tends to fight it, but on the state and local level, you are more likely to see tyrannical proposals in states where one party has a supermajority - regardless of which party that is. In more balanced states, legislators are able to recognize that organizations with similar ideologies are just as likely to be in the crosshairs. In one-party states, it becomes tougher to imagine that these ill-thought-out laws could be turned on any organization, including those allied with the party in power. But state politics can turn on a dime. Virginia was long a bastion of second amendment freedom. But just this term they have seen multiple proposals for gun control, and many of them seem likely to pass. Would NRA members want to live in a state where both their second AND their first amendment rights were under threat? 

Make no mistake: once the government has a list of names, it is quite easy for it to be misused by individuals with a grudge, or governments that brook no opposition. California sheriffs in the more conservative inland portion of the state have been forced to disclose the names of concealed carry permit holders under open records requests by the San Francisco Chronicle. In Arizona, the state department of education “inadvertently” released the names of Educational Savings Account recipients. Federal agents unmasked the identities of over 16,000 “U.S. persons” swept up in FISA surveillance operations in 2018. Free Speech Registry proponents want to use fear to spur onerous government regulation. Sound familiar? 

Mike Davis is Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Introducing a New Plan for Public Education: Put Educational Practitioners (Teachers) in Charge

The author, Kent Grusendorf, served as a member of the Texas House of Representatives for 20 years (1987-2007), all but two as a member of Public Education Committee, which he chaired for four years (2003-2007). His prior elected experience was as a member of the Texas State Board of Education for three years (1982-1984). In addition to this blog, Grusendorf is author of an 1889 Institute report also based on his forthcoming book. Saving Public Education: Setting Teachers Free to Teach is the title of my forthcoming book, which explores a potentially new professional opportunity for teachers. Most teachers are in the profession because they love to teach. However, far too many leave the profession due to lack of respect, excessive external pressures, and general frustration. Many teachers stay in the profession, but yearn for greater freedom to just do what they love: Teach. Much of that frustration comes from mandates, and a lack of professional freedom. Well Intentioned,...
Read more

What if Legislators Were Licensed? Well, Just to Make a Point...

1889 Institute, as a general matter, objects to occupational licensing. We have written about it more than any other subject. The scant benefits simply do not outweigh the enormous costs to consumers and entrepreneurs, and  the  burdens that disproportionately impact the poor.   It must be noted that the remainder of this post is a work of satire. This should be obvious to anyone who has read even one of our papers, but each of the proposals below has an analogous provision in Oklahoma licensing laws. To those supportive of government-created cartels, these proposals might sound almost reasonable.  A material threat to the public safety and welfare has for too long gone entirely unregulated, unrestrained and unchecked. This menace has the power to corrode not only mere industries, but to corrupt the entire state economy. It’s no overstatement to say that the practitioners of this perilous profession hold the power to destroy democracy as we know it. After a...
Read more

Higher Home Prices, Brought to You by Oklahoma's Occupational Licensing Machine

Increasingly, people across the ideological spectrum recognize the costs of occupational licensing. Almost since its inception, the 1889 Institute has highlighted several of the least justifiable licensing regimes in Oklahoma. Each individual license may seem, if not harmless , then at least only slightly harmful on its own. But the effects add up. It is estimated that licensing costs $203 billion each year, and results in up to 2.85 million fewer jobs nationwide. One of the principle ways Americans build lasting wealth is through home ownership. So a license that interferes with this process is particularly galling.  The transaction costs of buying and selling a home in Oklahoma are too high. This is not a matter of opinion, like “the price of gas is too high” or “the luxury goods I would like to own cost too much.” It is an empirical fact. The way Oklahoma regulates the Abstracting and Title Insurance industries tangibly and demonstrably impacts the cost of buying...
Read more

Here’s a Way to Shore Up State Employee Pensions: Sell Unneeded State Assets

The State of Oklahoma owns a lot of property. This includes land and buildings, but it also includes valuable assets like the state-owned electric power company, the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA). GRDA reports nearly $1.8 billion in assets on its most recent balance sheet , with a “net position” of more than $622 million. Or the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET), which sits on a $1.2 billion endowment that does nothing but sit and produce investment income to fund the yearly operations of TSET. To the tune of roughly $50 million per year . We would all most likely be better off if some (probably most) of these assets were sold or leased to private entities where they could (1) be put to more economically productive use, (2) be put on the tax rolls (they are not taxed now), and (3) relieve the state from the burden of maintenance and operations expenses. What’s more, such an asset sale/lease (a “monetization”) would generate a large financial windfall for the stat...
Read more