Supreme Court Voids California Donor-Disclosure Rule

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Spazito (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- A divided U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a California requirement that charities list the names and addresses of their top donors in filings with the state, saying the rule violates the Constitution’s First Amendment.

The 6-3 ruling is a victory for two conservative groups -- the Thomas More Law Center and the Charles Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity Foundation -- that said the California rule puts their donors at risk of harassment and intimidation.

California said it needed the information to investigate complaints of charitable fraud.

“California casts a dragnet for sensitive donor information from tens of thousands of charities each year, even though that information will become relevant in only a small number of cases involving filed complaints,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-voids-california-donor-disclosure-rule/ar-AALFg7M?li=BBnb7Kz

[C_U_L8R]

1. Money is speech to those who think corporations are people

[The Mouth]

3. "Speech" should be *ONLY* written or spoken words

as far as the First Amendment goes.

[maxrandb]

2. So much for federalism

Fuck this bogus court.

The Retrumplicans and McConnell have so politicized this court, and the Federalists Society have spent 40 years in a relentless mission to insert white supremacists (yes, even Thomas is a white supremacist) up and down the state and federal courts, that ANY appearance of unbiased interpretation of the law is nothing but a smokescreen.

It's going to be a hard slog, but I think we have ONE national election left before the only option left will be to tear the whole thing down and start anew.

It's been a good 250 year run, but unless we come out in full force in 2022 and stomp this Retrumplican party into the ground, this country is dead

[SpankMe]

4. Scalia might have voted to uphold this law

One of the few (and I do mean few) areas where I concurred with justice Scalia was when he spoke on behalf of a similar law in Washington state. They had (or have) a law where funders of state ballot initiatives could not be kept secret. He said that those seeking to change laws that govern us all should not be allowed to remain anonymous in order that the motives of those seeking new laws could be appropriately judged by the voting public. He referred to the "civic courage" that should be engendered by those seeking changes to the law.

[Polybius]

5. Is this the same case?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142763922

[Spazito]

6. *LOCKING*

Host consensus is this OP doesn't meet the criteria in the SOP of this forum:

No duplicates.

Please continue discussion here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142763922