There was a time when leaving doors unlocked at night was common among Americans. People felt secure in their neighborhoods and didn’t see the need for extra precautions.
But that mindset shifted. The rise of crime, including robbery and homicide, prompted a change. As communities became more digital, many lost touch with their neighbors. Now, many look back wistfully at those days when trusting your community seemed normal.
Perhaps privacy is where this cultural evolution goes next. It seems like the era when people freely shared their names, addresses, and phone numbers in public directories might be fading. Recent tragic incidents, like the shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses, highlight the changing dynamics of safety at home.
I’ve experienced my share of threats in my career—it’s not unusual for someone in my position as a US Senator and a presidential hopeful. But today, these threats are branching out. More and more civil servants, nonprofit workers, and regular citizens who engage in public discourse are also feeling the heat.
It’s tough for lawmakers to navigate these dangers. In fact, there’s a degree of accountability on their part since federal and state laws make it relatively easy to disclose the personal information of politicians and their supporters. The Campaign Finance Act, for example, forces the public disclosure of donor addresses—even for small contributions. In some states, even donors to non-profits can be tracked.
These laws were conceived as a response to corruption in the wake of Watergate—an effort to promote transparency. Lawmakers opened up about how things work in Washington, exposing campaign donations and passing new anti-corruption laws.
Fast forward fifty years, and the effectiveness of these reforms is up for debate. Many don’t believe that our leaders are more trustworthy now than they were back then. People still suspect corruption lurks in the shadows, but the real threat is now about safety right at the front door.
Laws that seemed reasonable in the 1970s might be incredibly outdated in today’s digital realm. Back then, accessing public records required significant effort. Without online tools, one had to visit government offices to dig through files manually.
Now, that same data can be accessed with just a few clicks. Anyone can quickly uncover personal details about millions of Americans, including names, addresses, jobs, and donation records.
Officials are beginning to recognize the risks. In 2024, the Federal Election Commission was encouraged to remove donor addresses from public records.
“If someone donated five years ago, their address is still out there, and you just don’t know who might be looking for them,” remarked Democrat Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum.
In the wake of the Minnesota incident, some states have taken action. For instance, Colorado removed access to its campaign finance database, allowing lawmakers time to request edits to their personal addresses. Similarly, Idaho and North Dakota have taken steps to remove lawmakers’ addresses from public websites. A number of other states have also passed reforms aimed at protecting sensitive information from potential threats.
Decades ago, such actions might have drawn criticism for being anti-transparent. Now, they just seem like common sense. No one should fear for their safety when serving the public or exercising their First Amendment rights. Violent political actors shouldn’t be allowed to stifle free speech through intimidation. Elected officials and campaign contributors deserve to be protected.
Former US Senator Rick Centrum of Pennsylvania serves on the board of People United for the Privacy Foundation.
