Brown v. Socialist Workers 74 Campaign Committee Ohio

• Decision Date: 08 December 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-776,81-776
• Parties: Ted W. BROWN et al., Appellants v. SOCIALIST WORKERS '74 CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (OHIO) et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

459 U.S. 87

103 S.Ct. 416

74 L.Ed.2d 250

Ted W. BROWN et al., Appellants

v SOCIALIST WORKERS '74 CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE (OHIO) et al.

No. 81-776.

Argued Oct. 4, 1982.

Decided Dec. 8, 1982.

Syllabus

Held: The disclosure provisions of the Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law requiring every candidate for political office to report the names and addresses of campaign contributors and recipients of campaign disbursements, cannot be constitutionally applied to appellee Socialist Workers Party (SWP), a minor political party that historically has been the object of harassment by government officials and private parties. Pp. 91-102.

(a) The First Amendment prohibits a State from compelling disclosures by a minor political party that will subject those persons identified to the reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 74, 96 S.Ct. 612, 661, 46 L.Ed.2d 659. Moreover, minor parties must be allowed sufficient flexibility in the proof of injury. Ibid. These principles for safeguarding the First Amendment interests of minor parties and their members and supporters apply not only to the compelled disclosure of campaign contributors but also to the compelled disclosure of recipients of campaign disbursements. Pp. 91-98.

(b) Here, the District Court, in upholding appellees' challenge to the constitutionality of the Ohio disclosure provisions, properly concluded that the evidence of private and government hostility toward the SWP and its members establishes a reasonable probability that disclosing the names of contributors and recipients will subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals. Pp. 98-101.

Affirmed.

Gary Elson Brown, Columbus, Ohio, for appellants.

Thomas D. Buckley, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for appellees.

Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether certain disclosure requirements of the Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law, Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3517.01 et seq., can be constitutionally applied to the Socialist Workers Party, a minor political party which historically has been the object of harassment by government officials and private parties. The Ohio statute requires every political party to report the names and addresses of campaign contributors and recipients of campaign disbursements. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), this Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling disclosures by a minor political party that can show a "reasonable probability" that the compelled disclosures will subject those identified to "threats, harassment, or reprisals." Id., at 74, 96 S.Ct., at 661. Employing this test, a three-judge District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held that the Ohio statute is unconstitutional as applied to the Socialist Workers Party. We affirm.

I

The Socialist Workers Party ("SWP") is a small political party with approximately sixty members in the State of Ohio. The party states in its constitution that its aim is "the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a workers' government to achieve socialism." As the District Court found, the SWP does not advocate the use of violence. It seeks instead to achieve social change through the political process, and its members regularly run for public office. The SWP's candidates have had little success at the polls. In 1980, for example, the Ohio SWP's candidate for the United States Senate received fewer than 77,000 votes, less than 1.9% of the total vote. Campaign contributions and expenditures in Ohio have averaged about $15,000 annually since 1974.

In 1974 appellees instituted a class action ¹ in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio challenging the constitutionality of the disclosure provisions of the Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3517.01 et seq. The Ohio statute requires every candidate for political office to file a statement identifying each contributor and each recipient of a disbursement of campaign funds. § 3517.10.² The "object or pur- pose" ³ of each disbursement must also be disclosed. The lists of names and addresses of contributors and recipients are open to public inspection for at least six years. Violations of the disclosure requirements are punishable by fines of up to $1,000 for each day of violation. § 3517.99.

On November 6, 1974, the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio entered a temporary restraining order barring the enforcement of the disclosure requirements against the class pending a determination of the merits.⁴ The case was then transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which entered an identical temporary restraining order in February 1975.⁵ Accordingly, since 1974 appellees have not disclosed the names of contributors and recipients but have otherwise complied with the statute. A three-judge district court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281 (1976). Following extensive discovery, the trial was held in February 1981. After reviewing the "substantial evidence of both governmental and private hostility toward and harassment of SWP members and supporters," the three-judge Court concluded that under Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), the Ohio disclosure requirements are unconstitutional as applied to appellees.⁶

II

The Constitution protects against the compelled disclosure of political associations and beliefs. Such disclosures "can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment." Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S., at 64, 96 S.Ct., at 656, citing Gibson v. Florida Legislative Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 83 S.Ct. 889, 9 L.Ed.2d 929 (1963); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405 (1963); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 81 S.Ct. 247, 5 L.Ed.2d 231 (1960); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 80 S.Ct. 412, 4 L.Ed.2d 480 (1960); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958). "Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs." NAACP v. Alabama, supra, 357 U.S., at 462, 78 S.Ct., at 1172. The right to privacy in one's political associations and beliefs will yield only to a "subordinating interest of the State [that is] compelling," NAACP v. Alabama, supra, 357 U.S., at 463, 78 S.Ct., at 1172 (quoting Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 265, 77 S.Ct. 1203, 1219, 1 L.Ed.2d 1311 (1957) (concurring opinion)), and then only if there is a "substantial relation between the information sought and [an] overriding and compelling state interest." Gibson v. Florida Legislative Comm., supra, 372 U.S., at 546, 83 S.Ct., at 893.

In Buckley v. Valeo this Court upheld against a First Amendment challenge the reporting and disclosure requirements imposed on political parties by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq. (1976). 424 U.S., at 60-74, 96 S.Ct., at 654-661. The Court found three government interests sufficient in general to justify requiring disclosure of information concerning campaign contributions and expenditures: ⁷ enhancement of voters' knowledge about a candidate's possible allegiances and interests, deterrence of corruption, and the enforcement of contribution limitations.⁸ The Court stressed, however, that in certain circumstances the balance of interests requires exempting minor political parties from compelled disclosures. The government's interests in compelling disclosures are "diminished" in the case of minor parties. Id., at 70, 96 S.Ct., at 659. Minor party candidates "usually represent definite and publicized viewpoints" well known to the public, and the improbability of their winning reduces the dangers of corruption and vote-buying. Ibid. At the same time, the potential for impairing First Amendment interests is substantially greater:

"We are not unmindful that the damage done by disclosure to the associational interests of the minor parties and their members and to supporters of independents could be significant. These movements are less likely to have a sound financial base and thus are more vulnerable to falloffs in contributions. In some instances fears of reprisals may deter contributions to the point where the movement cannot survive. The public interest also suffers if that result comes to pass, for there is a consequent reduction in the free circulation of ideas both within and without the political arena." Id., at 71, 96 S.Ct., at 659 (footnotes omitted).

We concluded that in some circumstances the diminished government interests furthered by compelling disclosures by minor parties does not justify the greater threat to First Amendment values.

Buckley v. Valeo set forth the following test for determining when the First Amendment requires exempting minor parties from compelled disclosures:

"The evidence offered need show only a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of a party's contributors' names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties." Id., at 74, 96 S.Ct., at 661.

The Court acknowledged that "unduly strict requirements of proof could impose a heavy burden" on minor parties. Ibid. Accordingly, the Court emphasized that "[m]inor parties must be allowed sufficient flexibility in the proof of injury." Ibid.

"The proof may include, for example, specific evidence of past or present harassment of members due to their associational ties, or of harassment directed against the organization itself. A pattern of threats or specific manifestations of public hostility may be sufficient. New parties that have no history upon which to draw may be able to offer evidence of reprisals and threats directed against individuals or organizations holding similar views." Ibid.

Appellants concede that the Buckle...