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
- 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.
- 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.