Supreme Court strikes down disclosure rules for political donors
Source: Axios
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California law that required nonprofits to hand over a list of their biggest donors.
Why it matters: Some campaign-finance advocates have feared the court will begin chipping away at disclosure rules more broadly, making it harder and harder to figure out whos funding major political causes.
The big picture: In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said California had subjected donors to the threat of public harassment and intimidation, undermining their First Amendment right to free association.
Background: California requires nonprofit organizations to give the state a list of their biggest donors each year. The state is supposed to keep that information private, but it has routinely failed to do so. Donors names and addresses have often become easily available to the public, according to briefs in the case.
A pair of conservative nonprofits including Americans for Prosperity, an arm of the Koch brothers political empire sued California. Its pattern of making donor information public put individual donors in physical danger, they argued, especially in this toxic political climate.
Read more: https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-political-donors-california-709684f8-7374-449d-a02d-275f3f150339.html
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)They are donating for business and/or political reasons and should not be allowed to do it in the dark!
Calista241
(5,586 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)That is horrible.
jimfields33
(15,787 posts)Id agree. But the publish all kinds of information which was not allowed.
rurallib
(62,411 posts)when being outed as a donor to the NAACP could be fatal
FoxNewsSucks
(10,429 posts)Protect billionaires, corporations, and their ability to buy politicians.
Today's decisions will make it nearly impossible for Democrats to win control in the future. Despite tens of millions more votes.
I wonder if Manchin and Sinema have noticed, or just don't give a damn.
JohnSJ
(92,187 posts)Midnight Writer
(21,753 posts)If an oligarch wants to start a phony astroturfed movement to push their agenda forward, they get to hide behind a wall of lawyers, of shell companies, and now, of government protection.
Mz Pip
(27,441 posts)But if money is speech then I want to know whos speaking.
aocommunalpunch
(4,236 posts)Our opinions arent even whispers. TPTB work in a system of legalized bribery and people are being bought crazy cheap.
KS Toronado
(17,220 posts)And why not, they've bought off almost every reQublican congress person.
Ford_Prefect
(7,895 posts)David and Charles made a few phone calls, wrote a few checks, and squeezed a few people in sensitive areas.
KS Toronado
(17,220 posts)On a side note, a perfect Ford is a 78/79 Bronco.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)(in Bush v Gore)
Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts flew to Florida in November 2000 to assist Bushs legal team. He helped prepare the lawyer who presented Bushs case to the Florida state Supreme Court and offered advice throughout.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html
Justice Brett Kavanaugh...
and
Judge Amy Coney Barrett
Deminpenn
(15,286 posts)their names are revealed says everything you need to know. If they weren't "do-badders", they wouldn't be worried about their names being made public.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,339 posts)... and some "Proud Boys" or "Oath Keepers" or extreme Christian will sneak up and throw bricks through my windows.
I prefer giving in a more "low-key" manner, thanks.
And yes, Proud Boys would absolutely call me a "do-badder".
Deminpenn
(15,286 posts)business. They aren't trying to support anything except to enhance their own ability to escape accountability by hiding themselves.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,168 posts)Polybius
(15,398 posts)Only conservatives would be Thomas, Alito, and Roberts.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,168 posts)Kennedy would be superior compared to the asshole/drunk who replaced him. 5 to 4 would be great with me
hadEnuf
(2,189 posts)n/t
edhopper
(33,575 posts)if there is nobody hears it? If it is private, it has nothing to do with Free Speech.
And Speech is protected from Government censorship, NOT public consequences.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)The Sixth Amendment only applies to criminal trials but it grants the accused the right to be able to confront a witness. Here that principle is not in play as the donor can hide in the dark. I would like to confront those people in the pocket book but I can't because this ruling allows them to hide. It seems to me that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
orangecrush
(19,546 posts)BootinUp
(47,143 posts)dlk
(11,561 posts)Their latest decisions to chip away at voting rights and campaign finance disclosures are more of their slicing the salami; chip a little of our democracy away here, chip a little more democracy away there, until nothing is left. It's time to expand the court to at least 13 justices, one for every appeals court circuit.
dsc
(52,160 posts)can give money to a dark money group to keep drugs illegal in our country, casinos can give money to dark money groups to keep other casinos from opening and there is literally nothing we can do about it.