National Review posted an article today about the Obama Administration’s support of the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act seeks unprecedented disclosures from private individuals, organizations, and corporations as the price of participating in public debate.

The article reports:

But the administration and its congressional allies hardly need a statute to make public participation in civic life difficult for private citizens. The Obama Campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have filed complaints against a major conservative social-welfare organization, Crossroads GPS, arguing it should be required to disclose it donors. Even worse, the IRS has responded to dozens of tax-exemption applications by tea-party groups with astonishingly intrusive document demands, seeking not only donor lists but also lists of volunteers.

Some recent problems with disclosing the names of everyone who chooses to take part in the public discourse:

It’s a sad reality of our decayed political discourse that too many dissenting citizens face similar dangers even today. Since 2008, we’ve seen intimidation of religious organizations, death threats, and extreme economic reprisals after disclosures of financial support for allegedly offensive causes. In recent months, formerly anonymous bloggers have been targeted for “SWATings” (where someone calls the police to fraudulently report a violent crime at a person’s home, resulting in a potentially dangerous police intervention). And frivolous lawsuits against controversial speakers have become so common that more than 20 states have adopted protective legislation.

No doubt the Obama administration would condemn the intimidation tactics its reckless “transparency” efforts enable. Yet the government still bears responsibility for the harm that results. The Supreme Court recognized this simple concept: “It is only after the initial exertion of state power . . . that private action takes hold.” In other words, without the government-mandated disclosure, bad actors would be on a tighter rein and have fewer targets.

Please note. My name is nowhere on this blog. The domain name is registered to someone other than myself. That was the agreement I made with my husband and children when I started the blog–they were afraid of repercussions if I said anything that upset anyone. They did not want to see some crazed political zealot attack a little old lady. I tend to share that opinion and thus went along with their request.

Generally transparency is a good idea, but when it endangers people who speak out, it needs to be stopped. See rightwinggranny.com for the story of  Frank VanderSloot, a major contributor to Mitt Romney‘s campaign. His is an example of government intimidation of a donor in a political campaign.