From Jerrick Adams <[email protected]>
Subject Federal judge to hear challenge to San Francisco donor disclosure rules
Date February 10, 2020 6:33 PM
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
San Francisco voters approved Proposition F to establish local donor disclosure requirements in 2019
------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to _The Disclosure Digest_, a weekly look at state and federal disclosure policies for nonprofit organizations and their donors.



** FEATURE STORY
------------------------------------------------------------

On Feb. 14, Judge Charles Breyer ([link removed]) of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hear arguments in a challenge to donor disclosure requirements that San Francisco voters approved in 2019.

WHO ARE THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT?
The plaintiffs are "Yes on Prop B," a committee advocating for the passage of a bond issue ([link removed])) to fund earthquake safety and emergency services in San Francisco, and its treasurer, Todd David. The defendant is the consolidated city and county government of San Francisco.

WHAT IS AT ISSUE?
On Nov. 5, 2019, San Francisco voters approved Proposition F ([link removed])) , establishing the following donor disclosure requirements for all committees producing campaign advertisements supporting or opposing any candidate for city office or any city ballot initiative:

* Printed advertisements must include a disclaimer with the names and contribution amounts of the committee's top three donors.
* Audio and video advertisements must include a spoken disclaimer at the beginning of the advertisement listing the committee's top three donors.
* In any case where a top-three contributor is a secondary independent committee, the advertisement (print, audio, or video) must also disclose the identities of the top two donors to the secondary committee.

These requirements apply to contributors giving $5,000 or more to a committee.

WHAT ARE THE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS?
The plaintiffs allege the requirements violate their First Amendment rights “by requiring their core political speech to carry disclaimers that will consume significant portions of those communications and in some cases entirely consume those communications.”

The plaintiffs have asked the court to bar enforcement of the rules: “The new disclaimer rules effectively drown out plaintiffs’ message on their selected forms of communication, making their participation in the March election infeasible unless the new disclaimer rules are enjoined.”

WHAT ARE THE REACTIONS?
John Cote, a spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said ([link removed]) , "We are defending this ballot measure consistent with First Amendment law."

Jon Golinger, director of Sunlight on Dark Money, the campaign that supported Proposition F, said ([link removed]) , “This lawsuit is designed to keep voters in the dark so that secretive Super PACs can hide the real agenda behind their campaign ads.”

CASE INFORMATION
Breyer was appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton (D). The case name and number are Yes on Prop B v. San Francisco ([link removed]) , 3:20-cv-00630-CRB.


------------------------------------------------------------

[link removed]
------------------------------------------------------------


** WHAT WE'RE READING
------------------------------------------------------------

* Bloomberg Tax, "IRS Urged to Complete Rollback of Donor Disclosure Rules," Feb. 7, 2020 ([link removed])
* Politico, "Bye-bye, reporting requirements?" Feb. 7, 2020 ([link removed])
* Roll Call, "House Judiciary Democrats eye campaign finance measures," Feb. 6, 2020 ([link removed])
* San Francisco Chronicle, "Free speech or dark money disclosure: Political operatives seek to gut SF campaign ad measure," Feb. 5, 2020 ([link removed])


------------------------------------------------------------


** THE BIG PICTURE
------------------------------------------------------------


** _NUMBER OF RELEVANT BILLS BY STATE_
------------------------------------------------------------

We're currently tracking 41 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here ([link removed]) for a complete list of all the bills we're tracking.


** _NUMBER OF RELEVANT BILLS BY CURRENT LEGISLATIVE STATUS_
------------------------------------------------------------


** _NUMBER OF RELEVANT BILLS BY PARTISAN STATUS OF SPONSOR(S)_
------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------


** RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------

Below is a complete list of legislative actions taken on relevant bills in the past week. Bills are listed in alphabetical order, first by state then by bill number.

* OKLAHOMA SB1491 ([link removed]) : This bill would prohibit public agencies from requiring 501(c) entities to furnish them with personal information about donors.

* Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 6.

* TENNESSEE is currently considering four substantively similar donor disclosure bills that would prohibit public agencies from requiring 501(c) entities to furnish them with personal information about donors.

* HB2396 ([link removed]) (companion to SB2293): Introduced Feb. 5.
* HB2665 ([link removed]) (companion to SB2886): Introduced Feb. 5.
* SB2293 ([link removed]) (companion to HB2396): Introduced Feb. 6.
* SB2886 ([link removed]) (companion to HB2665): Introduced Feb. 6.

------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.

============================================================

BALLOTPEDIA DEPENDS ON THE SUPPORT OF OUR READERS.

The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.


** Click here to support our work ([link removed])


-------------------------
_Copyright © 2020, All rights reserved._

OUR MAILING ADDRESS IS:

Ballotpedia
8383 Greenway Blvd
Suite 600
Middleton, WI 53562
** unsubscribe from all emails ( [link removed] )
** update subscription preferences ( [link removed] )
Screenshot of the email generated on import

Message Analysis

  • Sender: Ballotpedia
  • Political Party: n/a
  • Country: United States
  • State/Locality: n/a
  • Office: n/a
  • Email Providers:
    • Litmus