Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio)
1982 U.S. LEXIS 169, 459 U.S. 87, 74 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state cannot constitutionally compel a minor political party to disclose the names of its campaign contributors and expenditure recipients if the party can demonstrate a reasonable probability that such disclosure will subject those identified to threats, harassment, or reprisals. This standard, established for contributors in Buckley v. Valeo, also applies to recipients of campaign disbursements.
Facts:
- The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is a small political party in Ohio that seeks to achieve socialism through the political process.
- An Ohio statute requires every political party to file public reports identifying the names and addresses of its campaign contributors and the recipients of its campaign disbursements.
- The SWP and its members have a documented history of being the target of harassment and hostility from both private parties and government officials.
- Specific incidents of hostility included threatening phone calls, hate mail, property destruction, and police harassment of an SWP candidate.
- The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted massive surveillance and a counterintelligence 'Disruption Program' against the SWP, which involved disseminating information to impair the party's functioning.
- The FBI's program included sending anonymous letters to SWP members and their employers, and its surveillance reports were shared with other government agencies.
- Within a 12-month period before the trial, 22 SWP members, including four in Ohio, were fired from their jobs because of their party affiliation.
Procedural Posture:
- The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, challenging the constitutionality of Ohio's campaign disclosure law.
- The District Court entered a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the disclosure provisions against the SWP.
- The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, where a three-judge panel was convened.
- After a trial, the three-judge District Court held that the Ohio disclosure requirements were unconstitutional as applied to the SWP.
- The State of Ohio, as appellant, appealed the District Court's judgment directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Ohio's Campaign Expense Reporting Law, which requires public disclosure of campaign contributors and recipients of campaign expenditures, violate the First Amendment rights of a minor political party that has shown a reasonable probability of its members and supporters facing threats, harassment, or reprisals if their identities are disclosed?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. Ohio's disclosure requirements are unconstitutional as applied to the Socialist Workers Party because compelled disclosure would infringe on the First Amendment rights of privacy of association and belief. The Court extended the test from Buckley v. Valeo, holding that the 'reasonable probability' of threats, harassment, or reprisals standard applies not only to campaign contributors but also to recipients of campaign disbursements. The government's interests in disclosure—such as preventing corruption—are diminished in the case of a minor party with little chance of winning an election. Conversely, the threat to First Amendment rights is substantial, as disclosing recipients (who may be campaign workers, supporters, or even commercial vendors) could deter people from associating with an unpopular party and cripple its ability to operate. Given the substantial evidence of past and ongoing government and private hostility toward the SWP, the party met its burden under the Buckley test.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes. Justice Blackmun concurred in the judgment, agreeing that the district court's decision should be affirmed based on the evidence presented. However, he argued that the Court should not have reached the issue of whether the Buckley standard applies to the disclosure of expenditure recipients. He contended this question was not properly presented in the appellants' jurisdictional statement or briefs, and the Court should have simply assumed the standard's applicability, as the lower court did, and decided the case solely on whether the SWP's evidence was sufficient. Deciding the broader constitutional question without it being fully briefed and argued by the parties was imprudent.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice O'Connor
Yes, in part, and No, in part. The evidence of harassment was sufficient to grant an exemption for the disclosure of contributors, but not for the disclosure of expenditure recipients. The governmental interest in disclosing expenditures—to deter corruption like slush funds and dirty tricks—remains strong even for minor parties, as they can still influence elections. In contrast, the harm to associational rights from disclosing recipients is less significant than for contributors; many recipients are simply providing commercial services and are not perceived as ideological supporters. The SWP failed to carry its burden to show a reasonable probability that disclosing the names of expenditure recipients would subject them to harassment, and therefore the state's interest outweighs the party's First Amendment concerns in that context.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and expands the minor-party exemption established in Buckley v. Valeo. By extending the 'reasonable probability of harassment' test from campaign contributors to recipients of expenditures, the Court broadened First Amendment protections for unpopular political groups. The ruling confirms that associational rights can shield not just financial supporters but also those who provide services or work for a controversial party. This precedent makes it more difficult for states to enforce broad disclosure laws against minor parties that can demonstrate a history of targeted hostility, requiring courts to engage in a fact-specific inquiry into the potential for reprisals.
