{"id":424855,"date":"2017-09-11T12:39:50","date_gmt":"2017-09-11T18:39:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=424855"},"modified":"2017-09-11T12:39:50","modified_gmt":"2017-09-11T18:39:50","slug":"new-mexicans-should-be-suspicious-of-secretary-of-states-anti-privacy-rulemaking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2017\/09\/new-mexicans-should-be-suspicious-of-secretary-of-states-anti-privacy-rulemaking\/","title":{"rendered":"New Mexicans should be suspicious of secretary of state\u2019s anti-privacy rulemaking"},"content":{"rendered":"

COMMENTARY:<\/strong> Doug Nickle\u2019s recent column (\u201cCampaign reporting proposal creates necessary, nation-leading disclosure in NM<\/a>\u201d<\/strong>)<\/em> is an example of Orwellian doublespeak at its best.<\/p>\n

\"Bradley

Courtesy photo<\/p>

Bradley Smith<\/p><\/div>\n

Nickle\u2019s purpose is to drum up support for \u201cSecretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver\u2019s proposed rules and regulations addressing campaign finance reporting,\u201d which, Nickle notes, is based on legislation that was vetoed by Governor Martinez earlier this year due to her concerns about the invasion of privacy triggered by the legislation. So, Nickle now wants Oliver to impose the failed legislation through bureaucratic fiat.<\/p>\n

(Editor’s note: Oliver did just that last week<\/a>, after this column was submitted for publication.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Mr. Nickle, please check your old copies of \u201chow a bill becomes a law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Worse than Nickle\u2019s push for the bureaucracy to overrule New Mexico\u2019s ordinary legislative process is the doublespeak behind Nickle\u2019s arguments. Basically, the rules that Oliver and Nickle want would require public disclosure of the names and home addresses of donors to various nonprofit organizations. Donors have many reasons to keep this information private. Often, those reasons are religious. Others simply want to maintain their privacy. Increasingly, it\u2019s because citizens fear discrimination or harassment for themselves and their families by their neighbors, children\u2019s teachers, and their bosses — or bullying by online mobs if they give to the \u201cwrong\u201d groups.<\/p>\n

But Nickle thinks the government should, under penalty of law, require donors to nonprofit organizations (such as Planned Parenthood or the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club), trade associations, and think tanks to have their financial contributions and personal information reported to the government, which will then publicize that info in a permanent, searchable online database.<\/p>\n

\"Paul

Courtesy photo<\/p>

Paul Gessing<\/p><\/div>\n

Nickle tries to bolster support for this invasion of privacy by raising fears about \u201cGeorge Soros and the Koch Brothers\u201d and \u201cdark money,\u201d an undefined phrase he uses no fewer than five times in an effort to diminish the long-standing freedom Americans have to give to causes of their choice \u2013 without having to report it to the government.<\/p>\n

But in the end, maybe it\u2019s Nickle, and the rules he supports, that should arouse our suspicions.<\/p>\n

Even as Nickle urges support for rules reducing citizen privacy, he avers that the organization he lobbies for, Take Back Our Republic, \u201cbelieve[s] in the individual\u2019s right to both privacy\u00a0and free speech\u201d and \u201c[t]hat\u2019s why we support New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver\u2019s proposed rules and regulations.\u201d When the stated purpose of rules is to reduce personal privacy, yet a person tells you he supports them because he believes in privacy, perhaps it is time to be suspicious.<\/p>\n

Noting that supporters of privacy have argued that \u201ctransparency is for government; privacy is for people,\u201d Nickle also claims, \u201cWe couldn\u2019t agree more \u2013 which is why we point out that the privacy of any individual or group who gives within the legally prescribed threshold is fully protected; their personal information remains undisclosed.\u201d In other words, your privacy is protected, but only until it crosses a \u201clegally prescribed threshold,\u201d at which point your information will be posted online by government order.<\/p>\n

If someone is telling you that in order to protect your privacy, you have to allow the government to post your private information online, it is<\/em> time to be suspicious.<\/p>\n

New Mexico already requires public disclosure of individuals who donate to candidate campaigns, political parties, and PACs. What Secretary Oliver, Mr. Nickle, and Take Back Our Republic seek is compelled disclosure going far beyond these traditional boundaries.<\/p>\n

Nickle ends by telling readers that the secretary\u2019s regulations are \u201cnot about the government imposing more regulation, or trying to gain more access to our personal lives.\u201d But of course, he and his organization support imposing what he twice calls in the same column \u2013 \u201crules and regulations\u201d \u2013 that would give the government (and everyone with an internet connection) more access to New Mexicans\u2019 personal information.<\/p>\n

So maybe it\u2019s about \u201cmore regulation\u201d after all. When you hear such Orwellian doublespeak, it is indeed time to be very suspicious.<\/p>\n

Bradley A. Smith, who served on the Federal Election Commission from 2000 to 2005, is chairman and founder of the\u00a0Center for Competitive Politics<\/a>,\u00a0<\/em>the nation\u2019s largest organization dedicated solely to protecting First Amendment political rights.\u00a0Paul Gessing is the president of New Mexico\u2019s\u00a0Rio Grande Foundation<\/a>, an independent, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.\u00a0Agree with their\u00a0opinion? Disagree? NMPolitics.net\u00a0welcomes your views. Learn about submitting your own commentary\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Doug Nickle\u2019s recent column is an example of Orwellian doublespeak at its best.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":385209,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1192,16],"tags":[705,113,107,706],"class_list":["post-424855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","category-guest-columns","tag-money-in-politics","tag-nonprofits","tag-roundhouse","tag-transparency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=424855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/424855\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/385209"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=424855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=424855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=424855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}