NYCLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Overbroad Campaign Finance Law that Threatens Free Speech
The New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging provisions of a New York State law that will curtail free speech and discourage people from donating to non-profit organizations that advocate for issues they care about. The 2016 Ethics Reform Law establishes a sweeping, complex and vague regulatory scheme for organizations that conduct a wide range of non-electoral public advocacy work – even issue oriented speech that doesn’t include lobbying -- and also implicates nonprofits that work with or provide services to those organizations. The NYCLU and ACLU argue that the provisions represent an unconstitutional threat to free speech. The suit is filed against the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, its Executive Director and New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman.
“This law was pitched as a vehicle to address the problem of money in politics, but instead of doing that, it takes aim at free speech rights of groups like the NYCLU and ACLU and hundreds of other educational and advocacy groups and their supporters,” said NYCLU Executive Director, Donna Lieberman. “The law goes way beyond lobbying or electioneering expenditures and makes public names and addresses of supporters who have nothing to do with lobbying or electioneering activities.”
The Ethics Reform Law was introduced and quickly passed in the final hours of the 2016 legislative session. The bill includes some positive measures designed to stamp out coordination between political campaigns and supposedly independent groups such as Super PACs. But it also includes overly broad disclosure requirements that target activities that have nothing to do with lobbying or elections. One section, 172-f, mandates that 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups that spend more than $10,000 a year on any public policy communications must report the name and address of donors who give $1,000 or more. The disclosures of donors will be required even if the communications do not constitute lobbying and do not involve campaign speech.
The NYCLU regularly communicates with the public about policy issues that have nothing to do with lobbying. Nevertheless, under section 172-f, those messages could require the naming of the organization’s donors, and New York State will make that donor information available to the public on a government website.
Another section of the law, 172-e, requires that 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations that provide support – including staffing, office space, financial support or “anything of value” – of more than $2,500 in a six-month period to a 501(c)(4) non-profit that is registered as a lobbyist in New York must file with the Attorney General for public review a report that shows all donations to the 501(c)(3) over $2,500 during that six-month period. That means that if the ACLU or NYCLU provide legal representation to a 501(c)(4) non-profit, that representation could mean they would have to reveal the personal information of all of their donors who have given more than $2,500. The first disclosure must be made by January 30.
“It is inconceivable that the ACLU or NYCLU should have to choose between forgoing representation of a client whose civil liberties or civil rights are being unconstitutionally violated and having to disclose wide swaths of its donors to the general public,” said ACLU General Counsel, Terence Dougherty.
These laws are also unconstitutional, the lawsuit argues, because controversial organizations like the NYCLU and ACLU are entitled, under the First Amendment, to maintain the privacy of their members and supporters. The statute acknowledges this and calls upon the Attorney General to develop regulations that will allow controversial groups to seek and receive exemptions from the disclosure requirements. But the Attorney General has not yet developed those regulations. So controversial organizations may be required to disclose their donors on January 30 without having had the opportunity to receive an exemption. And since the exemption must be obtained each year, potential donors may be intimidated from supporting the organization because of the threat of involuntary exposure as a result of the disclosure requirement
There is a long history of threats and harassment directed against the ACLU, its affiliates and individuals associated with the organization because of the positions taken by the organization on behalf of controversial issues and causes and, often, on behalf of minority groups.
In 1998 James Charles Kopp murdered Dr. Barnett Slepian while he was in his home by firing a single shot from a rifle through Slepian’s kitchen window. Dr. Slepian was a physician who provided abortion services in the Buffalo area and had been listed on the “Nuremberg Files” website, which vilifies reproductive rights advocates and health care professionals. While Kopp was on trial, the NYCLU received an anonymous bomb threat directed at their Western Regional offices. ACLU staff members have been listed on the Nuremberg Files website.
In 2007, a man dressed in a black robe regularly appeared at the offices of the NYCLU and the ACLU in lower Manhattan. The man marched outside the building waving signs that denounced the organizations’ staff members as “dogs” and “Jews.” He also maintained a website that charged the organizations were parties to a Jewish conspiracy. The website includes photos of several ACLU and NYCLU staff and clients.
And as recently as April 2015, the NYCLU’s and ACLU’s New York offices were the subject of a bomb threat that required a police investigation. The message that accompanied the threat referred to the 9/11 attacks. Following the attacks, the NYCLU was vilified by some for its advocacy for civil liberties in the face of government anti-terrorism initiatives, and for objecting to discrimination directed at Muslims and Sikhs.
“The right of controversial organizations to protect the privacy of their membership lists is well established, and the dangers of failing to do so are well recognized,” said NYCLU Legal Director, Arthur Eisenberg. “The dangers are especially troubling in a politically charged climate like the present. The overreaching of the statute and its failure to allow exemptions from disclosure for controversial organizations makes it violate the First Amendment.”
To read the complaint, visit:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.