Previously, an individual who donated to a candidate in Utah had their street name and number published in state records for all to see, now that has changed …
The assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University was a shocking reminder that political violence can touch us anywhere in today’s world. When dangerous people can track down their targets with ease, national tensions can play out in our own backyards.
That’s why it’s worth celebrating the passage of a new data privacy law that could make Utah a leader in the fight against political violence. HB450, signed by Gov. Spencer Cox in March, includes a provision to protect family homes from being exposed to attacks through campaign finance reports.
Previously, an individual who gave as little as $51 to a candidate in Utah had their street name and number published in state records for all to see. Exposing exact home addresses is not necessary to provide transparency to voters, and it puts Utahns and their families at risk every time they support a campaign.
It was once possible to dismiss these privacy invasions as trivial. Few people used — let alone abused — political contribution records when they were stored on paper. But the internet, smartphones, GPS and other technological advances changed the game.
Every year, it gets easier to access, analyze and weaponize the personal information these reports contain. In an era of rising political violence, states would be wise to clean up their laws now, before donors become targets. Utah did exactly that.
HB450 updates the state’s donor records for the digital age by removing the exact home addresses of individual donors. The money will still be transparent and traceable. The donations and the donor’s identity will still be public. But extremists will no longer be handed road maps for terror.
The law, which addressed a wide range of data privacy topics, passed 66-1 in the House and 28-0 in the Senate. That overwhelming bipartisan support is a reminder that privacy is not a partisan issue.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC), the bipartisan agency tasked with enforcing the federal campaign finance laws, agrees. The FEC has unanimously recommended that Congress pass similar reforms to redact home addresses from federal reports.
As FEC Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum has noted, the risk of publishing home addresses goes beyond political violence. Many vulnerable people want to keep their address off the internet, such as victims of domestic violence or stalking, or people whose jobs put them in contact with dangerous individuals.
Efforts to update and reform these laws have been underway for years. But the recent spike in political violence — including the killing of Kirk and the assassination of Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband at their home — has spurred more states to act.
Already this year,West Virginia and Minnesota have passed similar reforms to protect their citizens at home. Another donor address redaction bill is currently being considered in Arizona. Three other states — California, Texas, and Wyoming — already do not require home addresses to be exposed in political contribution records.
The lesson is clear. States don’t have to choose between transparent campaigns and donor safety. We can have both at the same time.
Redactions of sensitive personal information do not detract from campaign disclosure laws. They improve them.
Violent individuals should never be able to silence the voice of the American people. Utah leaders were wise to be proactive in safeguarding civic engagement. Hopefully the rest of the country soon follows suit.
Source: Utah News