Civic Register
| 7.1.21
Supreme Court Rejects California’s Requirement for Non-Profits to Disclose Donor Info
How do you feel about the Court’s decision?
What’s the story?
- The Supreme Court issued the final decisions of the term on Thursday, including a ruling that strikes down California’s requirement that tax-exempt organizations disclose the identity of their donors.
- The case, known as American for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, California Attorney General, concerned the state of California’s requirement that tax-exempt charitable organizations disclose the names and addresses of their major donors.
- The state contended that this information helps police misconduct by tax-exempt groups, while the charities that were party to the case argued that the lack of confidentiality chilled contributions by donors due to the risk of reprisals.
- Americans for Prosperity is a charitable, tax-exempt organization that has a conservative orientation but is officially non-partisan. Hundreds of other non-partisan, tax exempt groups from across the ideological spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Hispanic Leadership Fund, filed amici curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs supporting AFP’s position.
- The federal district court in two cases granted the charities’ request for an injunction that blocked California from collecting the donor information, while the Ninth Circuit reversed those decisions and sent them back to the lower court.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, finding that California’s donor disclosure rule violated the First Amendment.
What did the justices say?
- Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, which was joined in full by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with the judgment but didn’t join all of Roberts’s opinion. Roberts’s majority opinion read in part:
“Finally, California’s demand for Schedule Bs cannot be saved by the fact that donor information is already disclosed to the IRS as a condition of federal tax-exempt status. For one thing, each governmental demand for disclosure brings with it an additional risk of chill. For another, revenue collection efforts and conferral of tax-exempt status may raise issues not presented by California’s disclosure requirement, which can prevent charities from operating in the State altogether.
We are left to conclude that the Attorney General’s disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors’ associational rights. And this burden cannot be justified on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to investigating charitable wrongdoing, or that the State’s interest in administrative convenience is sufficiently important. We therefore hold that the up-front collection of Schedule Bs is facially unconstitutional, because it fails exacting scrutiny in “a substantial number of its applications . . . judged in relation to [its] plainly legitimate sweep.”
The dissent concludes by saying that it would be “sympathetic” if we “had simply granted as-applied relief to petitioners based on [our] reading of the facts.” But the pertinent facts in these cases are the same across the board: Schedule Bs are not used to initiate investigations. That is true in every case. California has not considered alternatives to indiscriminate up-front disclosure. That is true in every case. And the State’s interest in amassing sensitive information for its own convenience is weak. That is true in every case. When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough, “[b]ecause First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive.””
- Thomas filed a concurring opinion as did Alito, whose concurrence was joined by Gorsuch. Both explained that they agreed with the judgment but would have scrutinized aspects of the case differently.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan. Sotomayor’s dissent read in part:
“Although this Court is protective of First Amendment rights, it typically requires that plaintiffs demonstrate an actual First Amendment burden before demanding that a law be narrowly tailored to the government’s interests, never mind striking the law down in its entirety. Not so today. Today, the Court holds that reporting and disclosure requirements must be narrowly tailored even if a plaintiff demonstrates no burden at all. The same scrutiny the Court applied when NAACP members in the Jim Crow South did not want to disclose their membership for fear of reprisals and violence now applies equally in the case of donors only too happy to publicize their names across the websites and walls of the organizations they support.
California oversees nearly a quarter of this Nation’s charitable assets. As part of that oversight, it investigates and prosecutes charitable fraud, relying in part on a registry where it collects and keeps charitable organizations’ tax forms. The majority holds that a California regulation requiring charitable organizations to disclose tax forms containing the names and contributions of their top donors unconstitutionally burdens the right to associate even if the forms are not publicly disclosed.
In so holding, the Court discards its decades-long requirement that, to establish a cognizable burden on their associational rights, plaintiffs must plead and prove that disclosure will likely expose them to objective harms, such as threats, harassment, or reprisals. It also departs from the traditional, nuanced approach to First Amendment challenges, whereby the degree of means-end tailoring required is commensurate to the actual burdens on associational rights. Finally, it recklessly holds a state regulation facially invalid despite petitioners’ failure to show that a substantial proportion of those affected would prefer anonymity, much less that they are objectively burdened by the loss of it.”
— Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Canva)
The Latest
-
IT: Battles between students and police intensify, and... 💻 Should we regulate AI access to our private data?Welcome to Thursday, May 2nd, listeners... The battle between protesters and police intensifies on college campuses across the read more...
-
Should U.S. Implement Laws Protecting Private Data from AI Access?Artificial intelligence is rapidly integrating into our everyday lives, transforming the way we work, live, and interact with read more... Artificial Intelligence
-
Protests Grow Nationwide as Students Demand Divestment From IsraelUpdated May 1, 2024, 11:00 a.m. EST The battle between protesters and police has intensified on college campuses across the read more... Advocacy
-
IT: Rumors spread about ICC charging Israel with war crimes, and... Should states disqualify Trump?Welcome to Tuesday, April 30th, friends... Rumors spread that the International Criminal Court could issue arrest warrants for read more...
The only thing that will save democracy is Campaign Finance Reform. Here you see that Republicans will never allow it to happen. So, the ONLY solution is to expand the Supreme Court NOW, appoint the most progressive judges in the country and get reform done.
Another win for Sanity.
All donations over $500 should be reported, and open
Corruption or corrupt Givers? Tax deduction? By legal? Giver?
The Supreme court needs to be closely looked at. These republican justices are bought and paid for. The people of this country don't stand a chance for proper constitutional and fair judgements. Of course they don't want donors names listed. It would show how these justices are bribed and expected to vote on key important issues.
Sharon, you are on a roll! Loving it! 👏🏻👏🏻👍🏻👍🏻😊😊❤️❤️
We have to get dirty money out of politics otherwise wealthy people will continue to decide who runs our country. The rich don’t care about the lower and middle class. They just want their tax breaks and the rest of us can go to hell.
This all boils down to rich and poor. If your rich your protected to do, associate with, and say whatever you want… your freedom of speech is protected. If your poor all of the above is not protected. Americans for prosperity is a group that is implicitly involved in writing up legislation the GOP majority passes. If they’re afraid that reporting donors would freeze donations… that tells me their donors know exactly what AFP stands for and don’t want it known of their association with a group that works for the rich and very likely racist. You only have to look at what the GOP does and doesn’t do to see what AFP stands for. American(s) (Rich) for Prosperity is a shady group and has been for several decades.
The solution is to exclude all true charities from this oversight, but require them to avoid any political action with donated money in return for the privilege. Any political organizations, overt or covert, would have to release their donor information for compliance with election laws.
Political donors should not be able to hide behind a not for profit.
It is bivouac that the Supreme Court has become corrupted by the corporate elite.
Democrats against it, so it has to be a good thing.
If they don’t write it off no one knows but if they do the IRS will know. Waste of time snd tax payers money again.. sad
All monies that are giving to any nonprofit organization should have to be disclosed. If said monies are to remain tax exempt. I’am guessing some of the justices are getting their pockets lined with these type of donors
This is tragic!!! We must have Transparency whenever we’re doing anything that has to do with donations & the government…
Report who your donors are or lose your tax exempt status.
This is not a good decision by the SCOTUS. Donors must be identified. A tax exempt org is taking a gift from USA Taxpayer Citizens. Of course we should know who is supporting them. And we should know what the org is doing beyond their stated mission. Are they an Honest, Well Managed and Trustworthy org.?
We need less dark money and more transparency.
We need less dark money, more transparency.
I’m at a cross roads here, I am the founder of project golden goal, an international nonprofit my brother and I started in 2016. I think that nonprofits should have a greater degree of privacy, but also can’t ignore all of the corruption groups have used nonprofits as an excuse for. I think documentation of progress or results would be a better strategy. The Red Cross truly doesn’t do shit and had massive funding without any big red flag donors while smaller organizations who have large donors can accomplish a lot. Track the progress, not the source. That’s what these groups are all about