Federal Election Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum’s Sept. 25 Thursday Opinion commentary, “It shouldn’t be this dangerous to make a political donation,” opened an important conversation about how laws from the pre-internet era might endanger privacy in today’s hyperconnected world. As political violence rises, Americans who participate in civic life are especially vulnerable.

Congress should heed Lindenbaum’s call to redact campaign contributors’ street names and numbers on public reports, but lawmakers should also question the need to disclose $200 donations in the first place. These donors are not fat cats seeking to influence politicians. They are Americans exercising a fundamental right to support a campaign.

Raising donation thresholds is an easy way for Congress — and states — to limit the dangers of disclosure. In Virginia, donors who give as little as $100.01 in an election cycle have their name, mailing address and employer published. In Maryland, there is no threshold to protect small donors from having their names and addresses exposed.

In many parts of the country, donors to nonprofit advocacy groups are also at risk. In its upcoming term, the Supreme Court will hear a case concerning a subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D) seeking to force a pro-life pregnancy center to hand over its donor list. It will mark the second time this decade that a state official’s demand for nonprofit donor lists is heard at the Supreme Court.

Federally, the Trump administration has voiced its desire to go after progressive nonprofits and donors such as George Soros. Democratic leaders in Congress have also pushed for more invasive disclosures through legislation such as the Disclose Act. Both sides should recognize that no American should be endangered for fulfilling their civic duty and participating in political discourse.

Heather Lauer
Hailey, Idaho

The writer is the chief executive of People United for Privacy Foundation.