First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport · ¶30
Since NAACP v. Alabama, we have faced many cases along similar lines. In them, one state authority or another has demanded private donor or member information. And in one case after another we have subjected those demands to heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Throughout, we have emphasized the critical role “ `privacy in . . . associatio[n]' ” plays “ `in preserving political and cultural diversity and in shielding dissident expression from suppression.' ” AFP, 594 U. S., at 606–607. We have acknowledged, too, that demands for private donor information “inevitabl[y]” carry with them a “deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 65 (1976) (per curiam). See, e. g., Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 524 (1960); Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U. S. 293, 296–297 (1961); Gibson v. Florida Legislative In vestigation Comm., 372…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.