Supreme Court Strikes Down California’s Donor Disclosure Law

In the final decision of the Supreme Court before its summer break, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a major ruling striking down the California law requiring the disclosure of donors for charities. The law attacked so-called “dark money” but the Court ruled that the state was curtailing free speech in a 6-3 decision.

22 thoughts on “Supreme Court Strikes Down California’s Donor Disclosure Law”

  1. Everyone should check out the recent true-life film “Seberg”. Although most police and federal security officials are brave and good people, there are also villains that illegally assume the authority of “Morality Police” or “Nanny State”. These bad apples (not most officials) covertly punish legal First Amendment activity and there is virtually no enforcement of these illegal covert activities justified under color of law.

    In other words that means you can be penalized for perfectly legal First Amendment activity and no agency will protect you. It’s not totally clear that even some justices on the U.S. Supreme Court really understand “Cointelpro” blacklisting tactics (covert punishments). Cointelpro tactics are primarily used to bypass and subvert Judicial Branch authority (judicial review authority) and rob innocent Americans of “legal standing” in court. Constitutionally oath-sworn officials – like J. Edgar Hoover – actually subverted his supreme loyalty oath by practicing Cointelpro tactics.

    Writers on this blog can be punished for doing nothing wrong and nothing illegal and there is no government watchdog that will protect you.

  2. It seems to me the First Amendment has been winning recently. Finally it looks like we are starting to return our rights back. This is a good day, but with a caveat, bad money will slip through too.

    1. Saw a vidio of uncle joe. Our fearless leader really should be in assisted living. I hope they took his car keys away from him.

  3. The Left systematically targets anyone who donated any amount to a cause they disagree with.

    1. Lt William Kelly was fired for donating $10 to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense fund through a Christian charity.

    2. Supporters of Pro 8 were targeted. (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19prop8.html) “Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the proposition. “And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.”

    So chilling, apparently, that supporters have filed suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento seeking a preliminary injunction of a state election law that requires donors of $100 or more to disclose their names, addresses, occupations and other personal information. In particular, the suit seeks to stop the final filing for the 2008 election, which is due Jan. 31. That filing includes donations made in the closing days of the campaign, when the proposition surged to victory.

    3. About doxxing small donors: https://www.transparencyusa.org/article/canyoubedoxxed
    “By providing a public record of donors’ names, along with the amounts and dates of contributions, citizens should be able to keep an eye on their elected representatives to be sure their vote isn’t being bought, and their donations aren’t being used inappropriately. The law was never intended to be a tool used against Americans who seek to exercise their First Amendment right to political speech…Groups advocating for social change or educating the public about a particular issue are not required to divulge the names of their donors. These donations are often referred to as “dark money. ” (Think, for example, teachers’ unions, taxpayer advocacy groups, or citizens urging changes to the healthcare system.) A unanimous Supreme Court decision in NAACP v. Alabama held that the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of association clauses as well as the 14th Amendment’s due process clause allowed organizations to protect the names of their donors in order to protect them from harassment or violence.

    Effectively, the courts have struck a balance between disclosing information about politicians to prevent corruption while protecting the privacy of citizens’ political activity to prevent harassment…

    Online mobs and would-be doxxers should be treated like the bullies they are. Allow their threats to influence your political speech, and it reinforces that it’s an effective tactic. Ignore them, and they lose their power.”

  4. Seems to be a well reasoned decision. Hopefully, there will be no unintended consequences to this. Good to see at least six Justices continue to support the First Amendment.

  5. Mr. Turley: Why have you not yet commented on the SCOTUS opinion, along strict ‘party’ lines, on the voter registration issue?…i don’t think i missed it.
    thank you.

    1. No surprises on this 6 – 3 decision! Who would expect the 3 to rule in favor of the 1st Amendment to the USA Constitution????

  6. TRUMP’S COMPANY AND ITS CFO INDICTED

    – One America News
    ________________

    The Office of the Manhattan District Attorney and DA Cyrus Vance Jr. should be struck down by the Supreme Court for egregiously malicious prosecution, abuse of power and public corruption.

    The Supreme Court must “Mike Nifong” this communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) clown show.

  7. “…the Supreme Court…delivered a major ruling striking down the California law ”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    The Supreme Court must strike down the entire American welfare state.

    The Supreme Court must read Article 1, Section 8 and the 5th Amendment.

    Congress has no power to tax for anything but “…general Welfare…,” Congress has no power to regulate anything but money, commerce and land and naval Forces, and Congress has no power to “claim or exercise dominion” over private property.

    The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court is sworn to support, not thwart the Constitution?

  8. Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer show a deep disrespect for the Constitution by their “avoid their obligations” ruse. Where in the Constitution does it say that First Amendment rights are conditional on some vague notion of “obligations”?

  9. It never rains in California!
    But guys … Let me warn ya….
    When it rains!
    Then it pours!

  10. Happy to hear of this ruling. The Left has been targeting dissenters through their private donations.

    1. Karen: there isn’t any evil “Left” that targets dissenters or anyone else. It’s not about “dissenters” at all, but to disclose the source of dark money, and only for “major” donors. People should have the right to know where the money’s coming from that finances the activities of “charities”, because sometimes they aren’t “charities” at all–e.g., the Trump Foundation, which was your hero’s personal slush fund. Only those donating large sums of money to controversial causes and who want to hide and avoid accountability have any complaint. Those people aren’t “the Left”.

      1. “Anonymity can also be used by trolls who attack others while hiding themselves from any accountability.”

        Now let me see. I wonder who that might be????

      2. Yeah, that’s kinda like when foreign money is donated through pacs and heck, we don’t know where or who it’s coming from.

      3. Natacha, we know you are part of the “evil Left”. Don’t try to hide it.

      4. Natch, “Karen: there isn’t any evil “Left””

        ***
        If you are familiar with history it would be obvious to you that the Left has been evil at least since the French Revolution and continued to be so to the present. The Left leaves utopian promises, lakes of innocent blood, smoking piles of destroyed wealth, and rotting dead bodies in its wicked path through civilization.

        It has always been evil.

      5. Hate to tell you Natacha but you disagree with the ACLU and the NAACP. Want to know with whom you agree? Alabama of 70 years ago. Nice going.

Leave a Reply