As political violence intensifies, stop publishing home addresses

There was a time when most Americans did not lock their doors at night. They knew their neighbors and trusted they were not in danger.

Then times changed. Burglars, kidnappers and killers persuaded some to lock their doors. Others simply lost touch with their communities as life moved online. Today, many Americans look back in disbelief at the casual attitude of past generations who routinely went to bed with their doors unlocked.

Privacy may be the next frontier for this cultural shift. The days when most people were comfortable listing their name, address and phone number in public directories might be coming to an end. The tragic shooting of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses at their homes marks a turning point.

I have dealt with my share of violent threats in my career, but I was a U.S. senator and presidential candidate, and sadly that has been the norm for some time. But threats and acts of politically motivated violence are now affecting all levels of public officials, nonprofit leaders and even ordinary Americans who attend rallies or speak out on public issues.

Lawmakers are not powerless to address this danger. In fact, they bear some responsibility for the problem. Federal and state laws make it remarkably easy to uncover the home addresses of lawmakers, their families and their supporters. Campaign finance laws make donor addresses publicly available, even for those who give only a few hundred dollars. In some states, even nonprofit donors can be exposed and tracked.

These laws were introduced in the post-Watergate as part of a wave of “transparency” reforms. At that time, lawmakers sought to address fears of corruption by inviting the public to see how the sausage gets made in Washington. Cameras were brought into Congress. Campaign donations were publicly disclosed. New anti-corruption laws were passed.

Fifty years later, the record of these reforms is mixed at best. Few Americans believe our leaders are cleaner or more trustworthy today. Although people are still concerned about corruption in back rooms, it’s violence at their front doors that has their attention.

Laws that made sense in the 1970s may be dangerously outdated in the internet age. In the Paper Age, it took real effort to chase down public records. A would-be harasser would have to travel to a government office and manually search through files, without the assistance of online indexes and sorting tools.

In the Digital Age, that same information is just a few clicks away. Almost instantly, anyone in the world can find the names, addresses, occupation information and donation histories of millions of American citizens.

Some officials have already addressed the risks. In 2024, the Federal Election Commission urged Congress to redact donors’ home addresses from public records.

“If somebody made a contribution five years ago, their address is out there, and you never know what wack job is going to be there looking for them,” explained Democratic Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum.

In response to the attacks in Minnesota, states have joined the fray. Colorado took down its campaign finance database to give elected officials time to request redactions of their home addresses. Idaho and North Dakota removed legislators’ home addresses from their websites. Several other states have recently passed reforms to make it harder for bad actors to get their hands on this sensitive information.

A generation ago, these actions would have been condemned as anti-transparency. Today, they are common sense. No one should fear harm for entering public service or exercising their First Amendment rights. Violent political actors must not be allowed the power to silence speech through intimidation. Elected officials, as well as donors to campaigns and nonprofit causes, deserve protection.  

Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, is a board member of People United for Privacy Foundation.