Over the past several weeks, there has been much debate on the filing requirements of grass-roots organizations like South Carolinians for Responsible Government (SCRG). While nobody would describe this as a "sexy" issue, the ramification on our right to free speech could be great.

First, SCRG is following all applicable state and federal laws, as we have done for the past three years. We are a nonprofit 501(c)(4) educational organization that is allowed to lobby. Our primary activities have been to educate the public on school choice and limited government issues, and to lobby the S.C. General Assembly on associated legislation -- all of which is consistent with our charter.

Part of that effort included a two-day radio buy during the recent school choice debate that encouraged the general public to contact various House members and urge them to vote for the proposal. It was purely an issue advocacy advertisement that had nothing to do with the upcoming elections. Certain lawmakers took offense at being called by their constituents and are using an extremely hazy ethics law to proclaim we have crossed the political line and are not abiding by campaign finance law. SCRG contends we have done nothing that can be defined as "altering the outcome of an election," which would trigger our group having to disclose certain financial information.

All we have done is try to engage people in the legislative process, which is separate and distinct from the electoral process. Does the discussion of issues have a political impact? Of course it does. No less an authority than the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said so. But in saying so, he made the point that such speech is the ultimate expression of free speech and could not be restricted.

Advertisement

And that is the larger issue that is not being discussed. This is about our right to free speech and the continued erosion of the First Amendment. We believe that forced disclosure has a chilling effect on the First Amendment and is tantamount to silencing many groups like SCRG who speak for thousands of citizens.

SCRG is often at odds with entrenched politicians and the government establishment because of our limited government beliefs. Groups like SCRG serve as a protective measure against those who might seek to silence our supporters. People might laugh at that assertion, but anonymity is warranted when you are taking on the government -- in this case it's primarily the $7 billion education establishment.

There is legal precedence on this issue. The 1958 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in NAACP vs. Alabama protects the anonymity of supporters of nonprofit corporations organized for the purpose of advancing public policy issues. The court confirmed that forcing the disclosure of the group's membership lists was likely to have a deterrent effect on the freedom to associate (and the speech it afforded them) and there was no legitimate justification for requiring such disclosure. In our case, there is also no legitimate justification for insisting that SCRG disclose its supporters.

The public needs to be aware that these ethics questions are simply a politically motivated attempt to divert attention away from certain House members' voting records. It's disappointing that elected officials would rather restrict the right to free speech than be held accountable for their votes, but SCRG is an easy target.

To those who side with our opponents -- particularly the media -- you must ask yourself the question, "Where does it end?" One logical extension of speech restrictions was recently tried in the state of Washington. In that state, a talk radio host devoted several of his shows to discussing a proposed tax increase. He spoke out against the tax hike loudly and often. The local public employee unions filed charges against the talk show host alleging that he had made a contribution to the "NO on Taxes Committee" and asked that he be fined. Amazingly, the trial court found in favor of the unions and against the press.

So before indicting SCRG, remember, the rights you take away from us today may be the rights you lose tomorrow.