First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport · ¶64

Even taken on its own terms, this response falls short. An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group. It is enough to discourage groups from expressing dissident views. A government that chooses to make private donor information public may make the damage worse. But “[e]ven if there [is] no disclosure to the general public, the pressure” to avoid ties and speech “which might displease” officials demanding disclosure can “be constant and heavy.” Shelton, 364 U. S., at 486; see also AFP, 594 U. S., at 616 (“assurances of confdentiality . . . do not eliminate” the First Amendment injury caused by a demand for private member or donor information). Just ask yourself, would it have been an answer in NAACP v. Alabama if the State's Attorney General promised to keep the NAACP's membership rolls to himself?

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.