When Kamala Harris entered the national stage as vice president, she did so with a political career shaped by her tenure as California’s attorney general and a history as a prosecutor. Many hailed her legal background as evidence of her competence to uphold the Constitution, but a closer examination of her record reveals serious concerns about her respect for fundamental rights, particularly the First Amendment. One of the most troubling aspects of Harris’s legal legacy is her consistent pattern of undermining free speech, especially through aggressive enforcement policies that infringed on the rights of individuals and organizations to express themselves without government interference.
This troubling trend is most evident in Harris’s involvement in the landmark Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta case, where the Supreme Court struck down a California law that required charitable organizations to disclose the names of their major donors to the state. While proponents of such disclosure laws argue that they promote transparency and combat corruption, the Supreme Court recognized that such laws have a chilling effect on free speech and the right to associate freely without fear of reprisal. I saw firsthand how this enforcement chilled speech by making conservative donors around the country afraid to make charitable contributions for fear of retribution or exposure from California.
The Donor Disclosure Case: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
In 2010, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris was at the forefront of enforcing California’s charity donor disclosure requirement. Under this law, all nonprofits had to file a Schedule B form, which included the names and addresses of their largest donors, with the state’s Registry of Charitable Trusts. This requirement was supposedly aimed at preventing fraud within the charitable sector, but it was Harris’s insistence on strict enforcement that triggered alarm among civil rights advocates.
Nonprofits, especially those engaged in politically or socially sensitive work, feared the repercussions of such disclosures. If their donors’ identities were made public or improperly leaked, they could face harassment, threats, and retaliation. In fact, California’s track record for securing sensitive information was less than stellar, raising legitimate concerns about the exposure of confidential donor data.
“They were trying to intimidate and silence conservative organizations. I just don’t think there’s too much doubt about that,” said Brad Smith, a professor at Capital University Law School in Ohio.
Two conservative organizations, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) and the Thomas More Law Center, challenged the law, arguing that it violated their First Amendment rights. They asserted that forced disclosure of donor information would deter individuals from contributing to their causes, thus chilling free speech and free association. After years of litigation, the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2021, the Court ruled in favor of the nonprofits, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. The Court found that California’s donor disclosure requirement was overly broad and placed an unnecessary burden on the constitutional rights of charities and their donors. Specifically, Roberts noted that the disclosure law was not narrowly tailored to meet the state’s goal of preventing fraud, as it applied indiscriminately to all nonprofits, not just those suspected of wrongdoing.
The ruling marked a significant victory for free speech advocates. It underscored the importance of protecting individuals from government-mandated disclosures that could stifle their participation in civic life, particularly in an age where political intimidation and cancel culture are rampant. For Kamala Harris, however, the decision was a rebuke of her overreach as California’s top law enforcement official.
Targeting Pro-Life Activists: A Pattern of Selective Prosecution
Harris’s First Amendment record is further marred by her actions against pro-life activists during her tenure as attorney general. In 2015, undercover journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, affiliated with the Center for Medical Progress, released a series of videos that purported to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of fetal tissue. These videos sparked a national controversy, with pro-life advocates accusing Planned Parenthood of unethical and potentially illegal practices.
Rather than investigating Planned Parenthood, Kamala Harris chose to focus her attention on Daleiden and Merritt, launching an aggressive criminal investigation into their activities. Under Harris’s orders, authorities raided Daleiden’s home, seizing computers, hard drives, and confidential footage. Eventually, both Daleiden and Merritt were charged with multiple felony counts related to their undercover journalism.
Critics of Harris’s actions pointed out the glaring double standard. Undercover journalism has long been a tool used by activists and journalists across the political spectrum to expose wrongdoing, yet Harris’s selective prosecution seemed driven by a desire to protect Planned Parenthood, a powerful and politically connected organization. The targeting of Daleiden and Merritt appeared to be an effort to punish dissenting voices and silence criticism of a key political ally.
The First Amendment protects not only the right to free speech but also the right to gather information and expose misconduct. By pursuing criminal charges against pro-life activists for engaging in investigative journalism, Harris demonstrated a troubling willingness to use her office to suppress speech she disagreed with. While Planned Parenthood may have been a politically sensitive subject for Harris, the selective enforcement of laws based on ideological preferences is antithetical to the constitutional principles she was sworn to uphold.
Harris’s Support for “Hate Speech” Legislation
Kamala Harris’s problematic relationship with the First Amendment extends beyond the courtroom and into her support for restrictive “hate speech” laws. Throughout her career, Harris has expressed support for policies that would regulate so-called “hate speech,” particularly on social media platforms.
While it’s easy to sympathize with efforts to curb harmful rhetoric and online harassment, any attempt to regulate speech based on its content runs afoul of the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution provides robust protections for even the most controversial and offensive speech, recognizing that the government cannot be trusted to determine what constitutes acceptable discourse.
Harris’s advocacy for hate speech legislation suggests a willingness to curtail free expression in the name of promoting “civility” or “social justice,” but history has shown that such laws often have unintended consequences. When governments are empowered to police speech, they inevitably target dissenting voices, particularly those challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. In this context, Harris’s support for hate speech laws is a red flag for anyone concerned about the future of free expression in America.
Defending Free Speech
Kamala Harris’s troubling First Amendment record should serve as a wake-up call for Americans who cherish their constitutional rights. From her aggressive enforcement of donor disclosure laws to her selective prosecution of pro-life activists and her support for hate speech regulations, Harris has consistently demonstrated a willingness to prioritize political expediency over fundamental freedoms.
The First Amendment is the cornerstone of American democracy, protecting not only the right to speak but also the right to associate, protest, and challenge authority. It is essential that political leaders, particularly those who hold high office, respect these rights and refrain from using the power of the state to silence dissent.
While Harris may portray herself as a defender of civil rights, her actions tell a different story—one of overreach, selective enforcement, and a troubling disregard for the principles enshrined in the First Amendment.
It is up to the American people to hold their leaders accountable and ensure that the Constitution remains a shield against government overreach, not a tool for political manipulation. In Kamala Harris’s case, the lessons of her past actions provide a cautionary tale of what happens when those in power fail to uphold the fundamental freedoms that define our nation.
**Related Articles**
*Harris puts up First Amendment fight but loses first round in court
*Anti-abortion groups call on California attorney general to resign, stop Senate bid
*Kamala Harris says Trump’s Twitter account should be suspended
No Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.