Ross Connolly is the Northeast regional director for the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
Delaware’s campaign finance rules are often framed as promoting transparency, but they risk discouraging participation in public debate.
For organizations engaged in public policy and issue advocacy, the challenge is not whether to make the case for their ideas but whether doing so comes with costs for supporters that are too high to justify.
Under Delaware law, organizations that mention a candidate in public communications — even in issue advocacy — can be required to register with the state and disclose detailed information about their supporters. That can include individuals who gave as little as $100 — even if those funds were given up to four years earlier — regardless of whether they were connected to the specific message.
In practice, that means that someone who supported an organization’s broader work — even years ago and regardless of where they live or whether they were aware of the specific communication — can be publicly linked to a specific message they may not have anticipated supporting in that form.
Supporters may reasonably worry about how that information could be used. In a polarized environment, public disclosure can expose individuals to professional or social consequences that have little to do with the ideas being debated.
Those risks do not fall evenly. For some — a small-business owner or an employee in a sensitive workplace — even limited exposure can carry outsized consequences, particularly when their views become permanently associated with a specific moment or message.
The result is a chilling effect, not just on organizations but on the individuals who make civic participation possible.
A system that deters people from engaging in public debate raises serious First Amendment concerns, particularly when individuals have little control over how their past support is publicly used.
Courts have recognized that risk before. In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Supreme Court held that states cannot broadly compel disclosure of donor information without a sufficiently strong justification, noting the potential for harassment and deterrence. The court emphasized that individuals have a right to support causes privately, particularly when disclosure could expose them to retaliation.
Similar questions are now being raised in a legal challenge to Delaware’s law, including one recently brought by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Delaware’s sweeping and invasive disclosure mandates are an affront to free speech, one that AFP is compelled to defend against.
Anonymous political speech has long been part of American public life. From the “Federalist Papers” onward, writers have used anonymity to focus attention on ideas rather than identities.
That tradition reflects a long-standing principle: that individuals should be able to support and express political views without fear of reprisal.
As policymakers consider how these disclosure requirements affect participation, the goal should be clear: Protect the integrity of the political process without discouraging the very engagement that sustains it.
Applying these requirements to issue advocacy inevitably risks chilling participation. Broadly extending these rules risks weakening the democratic process they are intended to support — including the open exchange of ideas that allows it to function.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
