Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witness tells panel donor-disclosure bill likely to face First Amendment challenge
Summary
At a subcommittee hearing on S.960, Holly Gatling of South Carolina Citizens for Life urged members to vote no, citing Supreme Court and federal decisions and warning mandatory donor disclosure would chill associational freedoms; staff summarized the bill's $500 expenditure threshold and $1,000 donor-disclosure requirement and the committee carried the bill over due to time constraints.
Paula Benson explained S.960 to the subcommittee as a transparency measure for independent-expenditure committees, saying the bill would require committees with election-related spending over $500 to disclose donors who contributed $1,000 or more, identify themselves on communications and keep records for four years.
During public testimony, Holly Gatling, identifying herself as a constituent and speaking on behalf of South Carolina Citizens for Life and the National Right to Life Committee, urged the committee to oppose S.960. Gatling cited a line of court decisions she said protect donor privacy and associational freedom, naming Buckley v. Valeo (1976), Citizens United v. FEC (2010), and more recent rulings including Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021). She told members the cited case law shows compelled disclosure can "violate the First Amendment" and said, "we respectfully ask you to vote no on S.960."
Committee members questioned Gatling about whether donors had told the organization they would withhold contributions if disclosure were required; Gatling said she had not polled donors and had no specific examples. When asked whether the language in S.960 might be vulnerable to legal challenge, she said she believed a successful challenge was likely under the cases she listed.
Because the subcommittee had a tight schedule and members needed to leave for floor business, the chair offered to carry the bill over. The committee moved to carry S.960 over, seconded and approved by voice vote, and the subcommittee adjourned without taking further action on the bill.
What’s next: S.960 will be rescheduled for further committee consideration; staff and members signaled interest in refining statutory language to reduce legal exposure.
