| From | Jerrick Adams <[email protected]> |
| Subject | SCOTUS to take up donor disclosure appeal |
| Date | January 12, 2021 9:47 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.
What's at issue, and how lower courts have ruled
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
[Disclosure Digest by Ballotpedia]
** WELCOME TO DISCLOSURE DIGEST
------------------------------------------------------------
** JANUARY 12, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome back! Starting this week, we'll be publishing this newsletter on a weekly basis. Today, we turn our attention to a pending U.S. Supreme Court case involving donor disclosure requirements in California.
[link removed]
** SHARE THIS NEWSLETTER
------------------------------------------------------------
[link removed] out this info I found from Ballotpedia&body=[link removed]
** SCOTUS TO TAKE UP DONOR DISCLOSURE APPEAL
------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear an appeal involving a California law requiring nonprofits to disclose their donors' identities to the state's attorney general.
WHAT'S AT ISSUE, AND HOW LOWER COURTS HAVE RULED
California law ([link removed]) requires nonprofits to file copies of their IRS 990 forms with the state. Schedule B of this form includes the names and addresses of all individuals who donated more than $5,000 to the nonprofit in a given tax year. The California law requires nonprofits to give the state copies of their Schedule B forms. Although the law does not allow the public access to Schedule B information, court documents indicate inadvertent disclosures have occurred.
In 2014, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, filed suit in U.S. district court, alleging the California law violated its First Amendment rights. In 2016, Judge Manuel Real ([link removed]) of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found ([link removed]) in favor of AFPF and barred the state from collecting the group's Schedule B information. Real was appointed to the court by Lyndon Johnson (D).
In 2015, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, filed a similar suit in the same U.S. district court. In a separate 2016 ruling, Real also found ([link removed]) in favor of TMLC and prevented the state from collecting the group's Schedule B information.
The two suits were combined on appeal. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously overturned ([link removed]) Real's rulings in 2018. Judges Raymond Fisher ([link removed]) , Richard Paez ([link removed]) , and Jacqueline Nguyen ([link removed]) issued the ruling. Fisher and Paez are Bill Clinton (D) appointees. Barack Obama (D) appointed Nguyen.
Writing for the court, Fisher said:
It is clear that the disclosure requirement serves an important governmental interest. In _Center for Competitive Politics_, we recognized the [California] Attorney General's argument that 'there is a compelling law enforcement interest in the disclosure of the names of significant donors.' The Attorney General observed that 'such information is necessary to determine whether a charity is actually engaged in a charitable purpose, or is instead violating California law by engaging in self-dealing, improper loans, or other unfair business practices,' and we agreed[.]
The plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for en banc review. That petition was rejected March 29, 2019. On Aug. 26, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
REACTIONS
Emily Seidel, CEO of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, praised ([link removed]) the court's decision to hear the case:
Tens of thousands of Americans each year participate in AFPF’s educational programs, which inspire them to make a greater impact in their community and our country. Their rights — as well as the rights of every person who participates in organizations that seek to reform our justice system, protect the rights of our veterans, or make progress on other issues as diverse as Americans themselves — are at stake. The Court’s decision to hear the case signals the importance of these foundational civil liberties.
Xavier Becerra ([link removed]) (D), California's attorney general and Joe Biden's (D) nominee for secretary of health and human services, defended ([link removed]) the law in question:
California’s donor reporting rules simply require charities to provide the state, on a confidential basis, the same information about major donors that they already provide to the federal government. This information helps the state protect consumers from fraud and the misuse of their charitable contributions. We look forward to defending our rules before the Supreme Court.
WHAT COMES NEXT
The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments. The case name and docket number are Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra ([link removed]) (19-251).
[link removed]
** THE BIG PICTURE
------------------------------------------------------------
_Number of relevant bills by state_: We're currently tracking eight 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
------------------------------------------------------------
For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here ([link removed]) .
* NEBRASKA LB8 ([link removed]) : This bill would change the statutory definition of an "independent expenditure." It would also alter reporting requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications.
* Nonpartisan sponsorship (Nebraska legislators are elected in nonpartisan elections).
* Introduced Jan. 7.
* NEW HAMPSHIRE HB105 ([link removed]) : This bill would require that political contributions from domestic or foreign limited liability companies be allocated to their individual members for campaign finance reporting purposes.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to House Election Law Committee Jan. 6.
* NEW YORK A00064 ([link removed]) : This bill would require district attorney candidates to disclose the acceptance of campaign contributions from law firms that represent defendants in criminal proceedings.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Assembly Election Law Committee Jan. 6.
* NEW YORK A00447 ([link removed]) : This bill would require political candidates and committees to disclose identifying information for contributions from intermediaries.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Assembly Election Law Committee Jan. 6.
* NEW YORK A01383 ([link removed]) : This bill would require financial disclosure of certain political contributions made by elected officials, including statewide executives, state legislators, and New York City officials.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Assembly Governmental Operations Committee Jan. 8.
* NEW YORK S00352 ([link removed]) : This bill would require political candidates and committees to disclose identifying information for contributions from intermediaries.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Senate Elections Committee Jan. 6.
* NEW YORK S00840 ([link removed]) : This bill would establish reporting requirements for transition and inaugural entities.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Senate Elections Committee Jan. 6.
* NEW YORK S00941 ([link removed]) : This bill would require district attorney candidates to disclose the acceptance of campaign contributions from law firms that represent defendants in criminal proceedings.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Senate Elections Committee Jan. 6.
Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.
** EVERYTHING ON BALLOTPEDIA IS FREE TO READ
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
But it isn't free to produce. We depend on people like you to ensure that access to neutral and accurate information about American politics stays available to all. Donations to Ballotpedia are tax deductible and go directly toward producing great content like this newsletter.
Please consider donating today!
DONATE TO BALLOTPEDIA ([link removed])
BALLOTPEDIA NEWS ([link removed])
STAY CONNECTED
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed]
------------------------------------------------------------
GET OUR APP
[link removed]
SUPPORT BALLOTPEDIA ([link removed])
BALLOTPEDIA
8383 Greenway Blvd | Suite 600 | Middleton, WI 53562
Decide which emails you would like to get from Ballotpedia
Update your preferences ( [link removed] ) | Unsubscribe ( [link removed] )
COPYRIGHT © 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
[Disclosure Digest by Ballotpedia]
** WELCOME TO DISCLOSURE DIGEST
------------------------------------------------------------
** JANUARY 12, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome back! Starting this week, we'll be publishing this newsletter on a weekly basis. Today, we turn our attention to a pending U.S. Supreme Court case involving donor disclosure requirements in California.
[link removed]
** SHARE THIS NEWSLETTER
------------------------------------------------------------
[link removed] out this info I found from Ballotpedia&body=[link removed]
** SCOTUS TO TAKE UP DONOR DISCLOSURE APPEAL
------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear an appeal involving a California law requiring nonprofits to disclose their donors' identities to the state's attorney general.
WHAT'S AT ISSUE, AND HOW LOWER COURTS HAVE RULED
California law ([link removed]) requires nonprofits to file copies of their IRS 990 forms with the state. Schedule B of this form includes the names and addresses of all individuals who donated more than $5,000 to the nonprofit in a given tax year. The California law requires nonprofits to give the state copies of their Schedule B forms. Although the law does not allow the public access to Schedule B information, court documents indicate inadvertent disclosures have occurred.
In 2014, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, filed suit in U.S. district court, alleging the California law violated its First Amendment rights. In 2016, Judge Manuel Real ([link removed]) of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found ([link removed]) in favor of AFPF and barred the state from collecting the group's Schedule B information. Real was appointed to the court by Lyndon Johnson (D).
In 2015, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), also a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, filed a similar suit in the same U.S. district court. In a separate 2016 ruling, Real also found ([link removed]) in favor of TMLC and prevented the state from collecting the group's Schedule B information.
The two suits were combined on appeal. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously overturned ([link removed]) Real's rulings in 2018. Judges Raymond Fisher ([link removed]) , Richard Paez ([link removed]) , and Jacqueline Nguyen ([link removed]) issued the ruling. Fisher and Paez are Bill Clinton (D) appointees. Barack Obama (D) appointed Nguyen.
Writing for the court, Fisher said:
It is clear that the disclosure requirement serves an important governmental interest. In _Center for Competitive Politics_, we recognized the [California] Attorney General's argument that 'there is a compelling law enforcement interest in the disclosure of the names of significant donors.' The Attorney General observed that 'such information is necessary to determine whether a charity is actually engaged in a charitable purpose, or is instead violating California law by engaging in self-dealing, improper loans, or other unfair business practices,' and we agreed[.]
The plaintiffs petitioned the Ninth Circuit for en banc review. That petition was rejected March 29, 2019. On Aug. 26, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
REACTIONS
Emily Seidel, CEO of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, praised ([link removed]) the court's decision to hear the case:
Tens of thousands of Americans each year participate in AFPF’s educational programs, which inspire them to make a greater impact in their community and our country. Their rights — as well as the rights of every person who participates in organizations that seek to reform our justice system, protect the rights of our veterans, or make progress on other issues as diverse as Americans themselves — are at stake. The Court’s decision to hear the case signals the importance of these foundational civil liberties.
Xavier Becerra ([link removed]) (D), California's attorney general and Joe Biden's (D) nominee for secretary of health and human services, defended ([link removed]) the law in question:
California’s donor reporting rules simply require charities to provide the state, on a confidential basis, the same information about major donors that they already provide to the federal government. This information helps the state protect consumers from fraud and the misuse of their charitable contributions. We look forward to defending our rules before the Supreme Court.
WHAT COMES NEXT
The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments. The case name and docket number are Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra ([link removed]) (19-251).
[link removed]
** THE BIG PICTURE
------------------------------------------------------------
_Number of relevant bills by state_: We're currently tracking eight 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
------------------------------------------------------------
For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here ([link removed]) .
* NEBRASKA LB8 ([link removed]) : This bill would change the statutory definition of an "independent expenditure." It would also alter reporting requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications.
* Nonpartisan sponsorship (Nebraska legislators are elected in nonpartisan elections).
* Introduced Jan. 7.
* NEW HAMPSHIRE HB105 ([link removed]) : This bill would require that political contributions from domestic or foreign limited liability companies be allocated to their individual members for campaign finance reporting purposes.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to House Election Law Committee Jan. 6.
* NEW YORK A00064 ([link removed]) : This bill would require district attorney candidates to disclose the acceptance of campaign contributions from law firms that represent defendants in criminal proceedings.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Assembly Election Law Committee Jan. 6.
* NEW YORK A00447 ([link removed]) : This bill would require political candidates and committees to disclose identifying information for contributions from intermediaries.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Assembly Election Law Committee Jan. 6.
* NEW YORK A01383 ([link removed]) : This bill would require financial disclosure of certain political contributions made by elected officials, including statewide executives, state legislators, and New York City officials.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Assembly Governmental Operations Committee Jan. 8.
* NEW YORK S00352 ([link removed]) : This bill would require political candidates and committees to disclose identifying information for contributions from intermediaries.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Senate Elections Committee Jan. 6.
* NEW YORK S00840 ([link removed]) : This bill would establish reporting requirements for transition and inaugural entities.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Senate Elections Committee Jan. 6.
* NEW YORK S00941 ([link removed]) : This bill would require district attorney candidates to disclose the acceptance of campaign contributions from law firms that represent defendants in criminal proceedings.
* Democratic sponsorship.
* Introduced and referred to Senate Elections Committee Jan. 6.
Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.
** EVERYTHING ON BALLOTPEDIA IS FREE TO READ
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
But it isn't free to produce. We depend on people like you to ensure that access to neutral and accurate information about American politics stays available to all. Donations to Ballotpedia are tax deductible and go directly toward producing great content like this newsletter.
Please consider donating today!
DONATE TO BALLOTPEDIA ([link removed])
BALLOTPEDIA NEWS ([link removed])
STAY CONNECTED
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed]
------------------------------------------------------------
GET OUR APP
[link removed]
SUPPORT BALLOTPEDIA ([link removed])
BALLOTPEDIA
8383 Greenway Blvd | Suite 600 | Middleton, WI 53562
Decide which emails you would like to get from Ballotpedia
Update your preferences ( [link removed] ) | Unsubscribe ( [link removed] )
COPYRIGHT © 2020. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Message Analysis
- Sender: Ballotpedia
- Political Party: n/a
- Country: United States
- State/Locality: n/a
- Office: n/a
-
Email Providers:
- Litmus