Concerns Over Government Access to Private Donor Information
Officials in government shouldn’t have the right to know which organizations individuals choose to support financially. New Jersey’s Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, appears to be using his position to push a personal agenda, raising concerns about access to sensitive personal information without just cause or legal proceedings.
Past experiences with similar disclosures haven’t been favorable for Americans. In 2014, Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, resigned after it became public that he had donated $1,000 to support a campaign aimed at banning same-sex marriage in California. Going back even further, during the civil rights movement in the late 1950s, Alabama attempted to impose disclosure requirements to undermine the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) amidst its efforts to support African American students accessing state universities.
Today, large government agencies maintain extensive databases filled with personal information. Interestingly, many individuals hesitate to even share their earnings with close friends or family, while trust in the government appears quite low, with only about 22% of Americans expressing confidence that it acts in the public’s best interest.
The federal government’s surveillance extends to financial markets, where the SEC compiles information that links market activities to personal data. Additionally, some recent Supreme Court rulings have allowed for opt-outs related to gender ideology in schools, potentially leading to the government cataloging religious parents as well.
As noted in recent discussions surrounding Platkin’s actions, government officials shouldn’t misuse law enforcement to target political opponents. This could lead to a dangerous precedent where the law becomes a mere “parchment barrier” meant to protect citizens.
In the early days of America, Alexis de Tocqueville emphasized the importance of associations in society, suggesting that if individuals are left powerless, they must band together to enact change. This underscores the constitutional intention to safeguard minority views from oppression and to channel power from the populace.
Platkin’s actions aren’t just an isolated incident; a similar case is currently unfolding in the Sixth Circuit, where the federal government is standing behind practices that compel nonprofits to reveal private donor information.
Former President Reagan famously remarked that the phrase “I’m from the government” can inspire fear. When the government collects information, the potential for misuse looms large, highlighting the need for stringent limits on what data it gathers. Courts must play a crucial role in ensuring that the government doesn’t maintain unnecessary records, which could expose citizens to harassment.
