No, the Attempt to Block the Unmasking of Trump Critic on Twitter Does Not Mean Campaign Finance Disclosure is Unconstitutional

Some on the right have claimed that the complaint filed by Twitter (via Seth Waxman) seeking to block the Trump administration from forcing Twitter to reveal the identity of a Twitter user critical of the government (and perhaps working for the government) demonstrates the unconstitutionality of campaign finance disclosure laws and the right to anonymity. Waxman has been part of legal teams defending the constitutionality of campaign finance laws, including disclosure laws.

Not at all.

1. I imagine Twitter is a paying client for Seth Waxman, and this does not necessarily represent his personal views.
2. Even for those of us who support strong disclosure laws, there is an exemption when the government singles out people for harassment (Brown v. Socialist Workers Party).  From the Twitter complaint: “Such fears are likely to be especially great for users of “alternative agency” accounts who are currently employed by the very agency that is a principal target of the commentary, in light of the retaliation, harassment, or even loss of livelihood that might occur if their real identities became known to their superiors.”
3. Will all the campaign finance deregulation groups that oppose disclosure come out and condemn the attempt to unmask the identity of the Twitter user?



Comments are closed.