Thread by @JoshABlock

1. I think the disagreement about posting info about Trump's donors turns on a distinction between (a) using donor info to hold elected officials accountable and (b) using donor info to hold donors accountable.

2. NYT and other newspapers often write stories based on donor info to say that politician X is beholden to the interests of big donor Y. But they are not used to donor info being used to say that donor Y should be criticized for their support of politician X.

3. What did Scalia think about this? "There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance...."

4. "...Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed."

John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 228,(2010) (Scalia, J., concurring)

5. But the majority of the Court has had mixed feelings. They say donor disclosure must be justified by a "sufficiently important governmental interest" and are subject to as-applied challenges if there is a real threat of harassment or intimidation.

6. The Supreme Court in Citizens United upheld disclosure requirements by a 8-1 vote, but this is an area where swapping Scalia for Gorsuch and swapping Kennedy for Kavanaugh may have dramatically changed things.

6. Thomas thinks all disclosure requirements are unconstitutional, and Gorsuch seems likely to agree with him. Alito is already very sensitive to claims that donor disclosure could be used to intimidate religious conservatives. I don't know enough about Kavanaugh's views.

7. The upshot is that--without someone to take of Scalia's mantle-- there is suddenly a real chance this Supreme Court might overturn a lot of precedent on this issue.