draft only do not file

 

 

February 7, 2026

VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
The Honorable David Chiu
San Francisco City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

RE: Ethical Responsibility to Uphold the Anonymity Shield Under Article I and the First Amendment

Dear Mr. Chiu,

I am writing to you today not only as a fellow member of the bar but as counsel of record in Stewart v. Taylor (S.D. Ind. 1997), a case that remains a vital link in the chain of precedents protecting anonymous political advocacy. As I approach my retirement, I feel a professional and ethical obligation to address the current "secondary donor" disclaimer requirements being enforced by your office—requirements that I believe stand in direct opposition to over a century of established law.

As you are aware, the court in Stewart correctly held that "McIntyre controls," ruling that the state's interest in an "informed electorate" or an administrative "paper trail" is vitiated when it attempts to impose a categorical ban on anonymous communication. Yet, current enforcement efforts in San Francisco appear to rely on the "Majors Error"—the logic found in Majors v. Abell—which erroneously limits the anonymity shield to "lone individuals."

As an officer of the court, it is critical to recognize that this "lone individual" distinction is a factual myth. The record in Hansen v. Westerville (6th Cir. 1994) proves that Margaret McIntyre was a leader of an organized group, not a solitary amateur. By compelling "secondary donor" lists, your office is not merely requesting disclosure; it is hijacking the speaker’s message in defiance of the following chronological "Anonymity Shield":

• Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): Establishing that even neutral laws cannot be administered with an "unequal hand" in this City.
• Barnette (1943) and Miranda (1966): Affirming the fundamental Right to Silence and freedom from government-coerced speech.
• NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Bates (1960): Protecting the anonymity of organized associations, not just individuals.
• Talley v. California (1960): Striking down the very type of disclaimer ordinance you now enforce.
• Canon (1964), Ghafari (1978), Drake (1979), and Schuster (1980): Confirming that Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution provides a "more definitive and inclusive" shield for anonymity.
• Tornillo (1974): Protecting the editorial discretion to exclude state-mandated clutter.
• McIntyre (1995) and Stewart (1997): Reaffirming that disclaimers are categorical bans on anonymous speech subject to strict scrutiny.
• Majors (2004) (Easterbrook, J., Dubitante): Warning that such laws "forbidden all spontaneous political speech."
• ACLU v. Heller (2004), Berger (2009), and 303 Creative (2023): Modern Ninth Circuit and SCOTUS affirmations that the government may not co-opt a speaker’s voice.

I urge you to consider your ethical responsibility to the citizens of San Francisco and the integrity of the California Constitution. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss how we might realign the City’s policies with these established principles.