The significant positive response to the Capitol Times’ recent poll (“Should financial
contribution disclosure laws apply to committees formed to help pass or defeat ballot
initiatives≠” 10/26/2007) is not only unsurprising, it is precisely what a recent Institute for Justice study predicted.
The study, Disclosure Costs: The Unintended Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform, (www.ij.org/publications/other/disclosurecosts.html) also demonstrated that
support for disclosure drops significantly when people face the reality that disclosure requirements would make their own personal information (such as name, address and employer) publicly available if they choose to contribute to a campaign.
Further, our poll found that even those who support mandatory disclosure rarely relied on or even accessed the information compelled through these laws, dispelling the notion that mandatory disclosure leads to a more informed electorate.
The most basic rationale for mandatory disclosure laws is the prevention of corruption, but when the recipient of contributions is a ballot initiative campaign and there is no one to corrupt.
When citizens are asked to weigh the real costs and benefits of mandatory disclosure for ballot issue campaigns, the reality becomes clear: These laws fail to provide the promised benefits and instead push more people out of the political process.
Jennifer Perkins, Staff Attorney, Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter