1

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1050 FIRST STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

STATEMENT OF 

COMMISSIONER ALLEN J. DICKERSON ON PROPOSED DIRECTIVE CONCERNING 

REQUESTS TO WITHHOLD, REDACT, OR MODIFY CONTRIBUTORS' IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION

Let me begin by thanking the public for its engagement with this proposal. Several substantial 

comments were filed with the Commission, including one from a United States Senator. I am 

grateful for those efforts, and I hope commentators will continue to engage with the Commission 

as we work to craft a regulation on this important topic.

I also want to thank my colleagues and the Commission’s staff. What appears to be a single 

commissioner’s proposal in fact represents numerous conversations among commissioners and 

hard work by dedicated civil servants. I appreciate those efforts.

Today is the beginning of a long-overdue discussion. The disclosure requirements of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act serve an important role, but they are not absolute. From the beginning, the 

Supreme Court has explained that, at least in some circumstances, compelled disclosure poses an 

undue risk that Americans will experience threats, harassment, or reprisals because of their 

political associations.

Fair-minded people disagree on precisely where to draw the line. But that is precisely why the 

formality and rigor of a regulation is required. The Commission should have taken that step 48 

years ago when the Supreme Court first explained that at least certain individuals, and certain 

organizations, must be exempted from our disclosure regime.

We will, I hope, take that step today. 

Before voting, I’d like to make three points.

First, we should be honest about the scope of the public reporting this agency demands. Every 

individual who gives more than $200 must disclose his or her name, address, employer, and 

occupation. 

That was one thing in 1976, when $200 was worth more than $1,000 now, and when our records 

were only available in hard copy at FEC headquarters. Now that information is available to anyone 

– instantly and forever – on the internet. 

Worse, we have interpreted the law to require the disclosure of even the tiniest contribution made 

through fundraising platforms like ActBlue and WinRed – platforms that raise billions of dollars 
2

from millions of Americans, many of them contributing far below the $200 threshold Congress 

believed relevant. 

It is simply inaccurate, and dishonest, to suggest that the FEC’s disclosure burdens fall mainly on 

the wealthy and the powerful.

Second, we know the standard to apply, although reasonable people may disagree on how best to 

interpret it. The Supreme Court has explained that an as-applied exception to our rules is 

appropriate where an individual or group can demonstrate “a reasonable probability” that a 

particular compelled disclosure “will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either 

Government officials or private parties.” Those are not the Commission’s words, nor mine. Those 

are from the Supreme Court itself, consistently, over decades.

Finally, we are already doing this. The Commission has excused the disclosure of all contributors 

to a minor political party. It has redacted the personal addresses of contributors to a corporate PAC. 

Even in my comparatively short time here, we have on several occasions, and sometimes 

unanimously, permitted contributors to redact or replace their home addresses in official FEC 

reports.

To be clear, I support those decisions. But ordinary Americans are entitled to the same 

consideration as the well-connected.

It is time to formally address this long-standing issue and to publicly announce, by regulation, our 

procedures for granting as-applied exceptions to our reporting obligations.

Until we can do so, I have proposed a temporary Directive to streamline our consideration of 

individual requests. Under that directive, no one can be relieved of any portion of our disclosure 

requirements unless a bipartisan majority of the Commission believes they have adequately 

demonstrated their need. The Directive merely provides a formal, and temporary, replacement for 

the Commission’s existing ad hoc process.

I hope my colleagues will support this effort and take concrete steps to defend vulnerable 

Americans’ ability to fully participate in this aspect of our political process.