503c-6s are the hot item in politics today. These organizations, named for the section of the IRS code that defines them, allow non-profit organizations to raise unlimited amounts of money from various sources, including corporations, while maintaining the donor’s anonymity. Notably, the IRS code stipulates that less than 50% of such groups’ spending can be on political advocacy. More than half must be spent on more traditional nonprofit activities like providing community services, outreach, and other social purposes outside the direct political universe.

There are lots of problems with these organizations, however. One that I think has gotten little attention is the question of what will actually happen to those 503c-6s that violate the 50% rule, say by spending 100% of their money on political advocacy during this campaign, but subsequently disbanding and failing to raise and spend money on social activism after the election? (Thereby meeting the 50% rule over the course of a year: 50% campaign spending NOW; 50% social work later.) My guess is that the IRS will strip them of their tax free status … but, of course, the organizations will be defunct by then, and the actual impact of any IRS ruling will be moot. Many 503c-6s are, in fact, nothing but political advocacy groups masquerading as nonprofits, using the tax code to expand their ability to support or oppose candidates and causes across the political spectrum.

As it happens, I am not profoundly upset by this. This is because money in politics is like water in a river: it always finds a way to get to its destination. Given time, water can turn a patch of desert into the Grand Canyon. Money has always been a part of American elections, and it always will be. Modern campaign finance laws are like domestic violence laws: domestic violence always happened; it just took a law making it illegal for the crime of domestic violence to be exposed. Money has always been a part of politics; it just took modern campaign finance law to try to force the question of who gives money, and how much they give, to the political surface.

Rather, what bothers me is that the contributors to 503c-6s can remain anonymous. The Framers protected free speech in the Constitution both because they wanted to ensure people had the right to say what they thought, and because they wanted others to be free to respond in a vigorous and open political debate. That’s why political speech is to this day more protected than other forms of speech. Speech acts are to be public, subject to adulation and critique from other members of the political community.

Take, for example, union support for Democratic candidates, which most Republicans and conservatives decry. You and I know what the unions want: more and better union jobs, with social and economic programs to supplement these jobs. Why do we know this? Unions tell us. They campaign on these issues, and support candidates for office who promote such programs. One can agree or disagree, but one has a basis for making a judgment. That is the entire point of the constitutional protection of free speech.

Keeping the names of donors to 503c-6s anonymous violates this basic premise of free speech. I may or may not agree with your point of view, but if I am to make an informed choice, I have to at least have some idea of what you want–of what your interests are. If I don’t know what you want, I can’t make an informed judgment. The game is effectively biased against me knowing what I need to know in order to be an effective citizen.

Of course I understand why, as a political matter, the donors supporting political 503c-6s like their anonymity. Anonymity may well prove to be a good and effective political tactic. But it can’t be defended on the grounds of donors’ free speech: free speech is by definition a public act.

Donors to 503c-6s are absolutely entitled to support those causes and politicians they believe in. But their anonymity doesn’t have to be protected by US tax code. I am entitled to know who they are and what they want. Free speech demands nothing less.