Pat Murakami—Mount Baker resident, day-labor-center and low-income-housing opponent, anti-density agitator , and cycling opponent—is the subject of a surprisingly sympathetic profile in a May 20th Economist article. The piece (subheaded,  "Want to talk politics with your neighbor? Better ask permission") focuses on the fact that "grassroots lobbyists" like Murakami are required to register as lobbyists if they spend more than $500 per month lobbying the state legislature. In April, Murakami sued the state's Public Disclosure Commission to overturn the law.

Murakami argues that she should not be required to register as a lobbyist, because it would have a "chilling effect" on her free speech and that of her supporters. And she says she shouldn't have to disclose her list of contributors, because many of them are recent refugees from autocratic countries and don't want their personal information on the Internet.

If the first amendment means anything, she reckons, it surely protects the right of Americans to talk politics with their neighbours. Many of Mrs Murakami’s supporters are recent refugees from autocratic regimes. If getting involved means having their personal details published, they would rather not.

In general, it's probably true that lobbyists and contributors to political causes would "rather" keep their information private. It's also completely beside the point. Public-disclosure laws are based on the premise that the public has a right to know who's attempting to influence their legislators, how much they're spending to do so, and who's writing their checks. If  "supporters" are actually paying Murakami $500 a month or more to lobby the legislature—unclear, given that Murakami has never actually registered as a lobbyist with the state—the public has a right to know who they are and what they want.