A Right to Speak Anonymously? Political Contributors and Reporters’ Confidential Sources 11-13-2015

Summary: Supporters of mandated disclosure of the source of speech (or of money used to pay for speech) claim it can provide important information to the public and the legal system. But opponents say it violates privacy rights and can also deter the sources from speaking or contributing. -- This debate also applies to reporters' confidential sources. In both situations, disclosure (of who contributed or spent, or who a confidential source was) may provide useful information to voters, prosecutors, civil litigants, judges, or jurors. In both situations, requiring disclosure of the source may deter people from contributing to controversial campaigns or organizations, or from talking to journalists. Politically, people tend to react differently to these reactions – confidentiality of contributors tends to be more supported by conservatives, while confidentiality of journalists' sources tends to be more supported by liberals. But structurally, are these issues similar? This panel will consider both these questions together. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Andrew M. Grossman, Associate, BakerHostetler; Mr. Stephen Klein, Pillar of Law Institute; Mr. Paul S. Ryan, Senior Counsel, Campaign Legal Center; and Hon. Hans von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Hon. Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan. Introduction: Mr. Manuel Klausner, Co-Founder, Trustee, and Legal Advisor, Reason Foundation and General Counsel, Individual Rights Foundation.