Government officials shouldn’t need to know which organizations you support financially. Plus, the state attorney general ought not to have access to sensitive personal data about Americans without just cause or legal proceedings. Still, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin seems to be leveraging state authority for personal political aims.
Past calls for similar disclosures haven’t fared well for individuals. In 2014, Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, stepped down after it came to light that he had contributed $1,000 to a campaign supporting California’s Proposition 8, which aimed to ban same-sex marriage. Back in the late ’50s, during the civil rights era, Alabama sought to disclose information to hinder the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which included efforts like the Montgomery Bus Boycott and funding for African American students at state universities.
Nowadays, sizable government agencies already maintain vast databases filled with personal information. Many people don’t even share their earnings with close friends, but trust in the government has dropped, with only about twenty-two percent of Americans believing officials usually act in the public’s best interest.
Thanks to the SEC’s consolidated audit trail, the federal government has compiled a list that tracks all stock market transactions linked to sensitive personal data. Moreover, the Supreme Court has adjusted opt-outs related to gender ideology in schools to include religious exemptions, which gives the government a chance to compile another list, this time aimed at religious parents.
As highlighted in related briefs, it’s crucial that government officials refrain from using their law enforcement powers to target political adversaries. Otherwise, what should be a protective barrier risks becoming merely a “piece of parchment,” as the framers feared. Whether the court rules against Platkin or not, his actions could detract from First Choice’s essential mission to provide assistance to mothers and save babies.
Without a clear rationale, government officials shouldn’t possess the power to disclose records related to private organizations. Even the mere threat of such disclosure undermines the freedoms of speech and association—principles central to American values.
In the early days of America, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that “the art of association is… Mother Science, everyone study it and applies it.” This suggests that if “all citizens are independent and weak” and “cannot do anything on their own,” it’s imperative for Americans to unite to make an impact. This aspect is a fundamental feature of our constitutional system, specifically designed to protect minority views from oppression and to ensure that authority flows from the people.
Platkin’s actions aren’t isolated; they reflect a broader trend. In October, a ruling from the Sixth Circuit involved the Buckeye Institute, which dealt with similar issues regarding nonprofit organizations being compelled to disclose their donors’ private information.
As President Reagan noted, the scariest words in the English language might just be, “I’m from the government.” When the government collects information, it raises concerns about potential abuse. Therefore, it should only gather what is absolutely necessary. Courts hearing these cases must ensure that the government doesn’t hoard information that could lead to harassment of citizens by its agents.
