California forcing non-profits to reveal donor names - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15163296
The state of California made it a requirement that tax-exempt non-profit organizations disclose to the state the identity of their top financial donors.
(California is the most populous state in the country, with about 12% of the US population)

This is concerning because the state really has no need for that information, and there are some good reasons donors may wish to preserve their privacy and anonymity.

In some situations, donors to certain non-profit organizations with politically controversial goals could even find themselves to target of violent attacks, if that information gets out to the public, or could potentially face persecution from the state.

The Thomas More Law Center that say the requirement will make their donors vulnerable to retaliation, harassment, and violence.
"Charitable entities shouldn’t be required to disclose confidential donor information to state officials who do not need it and who fail to adequately protect donor identities from disclosure to the public," said John Bursch, senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy at the Alliance Defending Freedom legal group.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, brought by Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Law Center.



Further details:

Qualified tax-exempt organizations already must submit to the IRS a Form 990 federal information form, including the names of “all substantial contributors” in a section called Schedule B. Substantial donors are defined as those who give $5,000 or more to the organization in a year or 2% of total annual contributions. However, the information about these donors must be kept confidential on pain of civil and criminal law.

Non-profits that ask for donations in California must file their tax returns with California’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, administered by the state attorney general, currently Xavier Becerra.

Beginning in 2010, the California attorney general said that disclosures must include this Schedule B.

Alliance Defending Freedom alleged that in March 2012, the California Attorney General's Office began to "harass the law center and demand the names and addresses of its major donors even though the center’s donors, clients, and employees have faced intimidation, death threats, hate mail, boycotts, and even assassination attempts from ideological opponents."

"Only the most stalwart supporters will give money under such a toxic cloud. Most will reasonably conclude that the risk of association is too great, with the result that groups who make the most threats will effectively shut down those with whom they disagree," stated the legal group's petition for Supreme Court review.

Alliance Defending Freedom has cited the Supreme Court’s 1958 ruling in the case NAACP versus Alabama, which ruled against the Alabama Attorney General’s demands that the civil rights group produce its membership list or cease operations. The restrictions on the group crippled the organization in Alabama at a key time when black Americans sought to secure civil rights.

U.S. Supreme Court Takes up Dispute Over California Nonprofit Donor Disclosure Requirement | U.S. News® | US News
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles ... equirement

Warning of donor harassment, Trump administration backs foes of Calif. disclosure rule - Catholic Voice (catholicvoiceomaha.com)
https://catholicvoiceomaha.com/warning- ... sure-rule/

According to the Heritage Foundation, "supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry."

Much of the hostility directed against Proposition 8 supporters has been facilitated by a California law that requires the disclosure of certain personal information of individuals who donate $100 or more in support of or opposition to a ballot measure. Information subject to disclosure includes the donor's full name, occupation, and employer. Once this information is disclosed to the State of California, the state then publishes this information on its Web site, enabling anyone with Internet access to view detailed donor reports online.

With this information at hand, several Web sites have been designed that facilitate the easy identification and targeting of Prop 8 supporters. For example, one of these Web sites is a GoogleMaps "mashup" that combines donor information with an interactive map, allowing activists to ascertain the identity, employer, amount of donation, and approximate location of certain Prop 8 supporters in particular geographic areas. A Web site called "Californians Against Hate" highlights particular Prop 8 supporters in its "Dishonor Roll" and provides addresses and telephone numbers for some of them. At least one Web site allows users to search for Prop 8 supporters who work in their businesses.

They go on to cite numerous other cases of vandalism and harassment against Prop 8 supporters (although none of them actually directly related to donor information getting out).

The Price of Prop 8 | The Heritage Foundation
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-f ... ice-prop-8
#15163300
Americans for Prosperity is Koch. Koch's goal is to run the country from the shadows, so maintaining the secrecy is crucial.

The 9th Circuit has ruled against Koch; but with so many kooks on the Supreme Court, you never know these days how they will rule. But they should let the ruling stand.

"The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that there was no showing of a significant First Amendment burden to the right of free association. The court ruled in a challenge by the Thomas More Law Center and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

California law requires the attorney general to maintain a registry of charities, and authorizes the attorney general to obtain information to maintain the registry. The attorney general requires charities on the registry to submit federal tax forms listing the names and addresses of their largest donors.

Circuit Judge Raymond Fisher wrote in the Sept. 11 opinion that the “mere possibility that some contributors may choose to withhold their support does not establish a substantial burden on First Amendment rights.” The opinion said the law is substantially related to an important state interest in policing charitable fraud."

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/right_of_association_isnt_infringed_by_disclosure_of_charitable_donors_to_s

Btw, the Thomas More Law Center is kooky Right wing lawyers. They defended dark money in elections, which makes me wonder who their donors are. It's the sort of thing Koch would shower money on.
#15163408
This one is tough. I mean, you might argue that donor info should be available for any non-profit that tries to affect public policy, but even animal rescues might reasonably try to do that. But when it's a non-profit whose sole purpose is to insidiously impact public policy, it may be for the greater good to reveal corporate donors and not Joe Blow who's just trying to preserve his right to carry a handgun.
#15175681
Non-profits and in general all kinds of NGOs, should be banned completely worldwide(as well as the associated activism)

Most of them seek to promote hardcore totalitarianism(more stupid laws, more criminalization, more restrictions, more taxes , more surveillance and so on) and largely come in two forms:
1. those that serve the interests of various wrong and abusive ideologies - feminism/sjws/(pseudo)ecology/"animal rights"/etc.

2. those that act as fronts for undercover operations by different intelligence agencies, both domestic and foreign - also seek to promote totalitarianism by increasing the power of the state and diminishing or eliminating the responsibility of "force" institutions(like law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, military, etc.) for their wrongdoings(when foreign intelligence is involved they may be involved in regime change and some other really ugly and illegal stuff - this is what the US does abroad with NED, USAID, FreedomHouse and also in collaboration with apparently "privately" owned NGOs like Open Society Foundation&various intermediaries and "children" NGOs)

ps. no need for NGOs if you just want to help with money poor people or to subsidize schools, hospitals, etc.
#15177762
Seems to me that if a group or organization is trying to influence public officials and/or policy we have a right to know who they are.

As far as exposing them to the repercussions of their political actions... I just don't see any problem with that. People in general should be held accountable for their behavior and ideas.

Why should anyone be able to buy influence? How does that help society as a whole?

The tail has been wagging the dog.. Israel is a[…]

Candace Owens

She has, and to add gravitas to what she has said[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspirac[…]

Both of them have actually my interest at heart. […]