## Facts

- Ohio’s Campaign Expense Reporting Law required political parties to disclose the names and addresses of campaign contributors and recipients of campaign disbursements.
- The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and its Ohio campaign committee sought an exemption from these disclosure requirements.
- The SWP presented evidence of a documented history of harassment and hostility by private actors and government officials, including surveillance, threats, and reprisals against the party and its supporters.
- The district court found a reasonable probability that compelled disclosure would expose SWP contributors and payees to threats, harassment, or reprisals.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment permits Ohio to require a minor political party to disclose the names and addresses of its contributors and disbursement recipients when there is a reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals.
2. Whether First Amendment protection against compelled disclosure extends to recipients of campaign disbursements as well as contributors.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the SWP and its campaign committee.
- Ohio’s disclosure provisions could not constitutionally be applied to require the SWP to report the names and addresses of its contributors.
- The same First Amendment protection applied to compelled disclosure of recipients of campaign disbursements.
- The Court accepted the district court’s factual findings that the SWP showed a reasonable probability of threats, harassment, and reprisals if disclosure were required.

## Legal Principles

- Compelled disclosure of political association can violate the First Amendment when it creates a reasonable probability that identified persons will face threats, harassment, or reprisals.
- Minor political parties are entitled to flexibility in proving injury; the showing need not meet rigid evidentiary demands if the record supports likely retaliation.
- First Amendment associational-privacy protections apply to compelled disclosure of both campaign contributors and recipients of campaign disbursements.
- Although campaign-finance disclosure can serve strong governmental interests, those interests may be insufficient as applied to a minor party where disclosure would likely trigger retaliation against supporters and those who do business with the party.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Ohio could not enforce campaign-finance disclosure requirements against the SWP where the evidentiary record established a reasonable probability that identifying contributors and payees would lead to threats, harassment, or reprisals, and it extended this protection to recipients of campaign disbursements as well as contributors.


Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm., 459 U.S. 87 (1982)