Law Requiring Nonprofit Disclosures Gets Chilly Reception in Supreme Court
WASHINGTON — A California law that requires nonprofit organizations to disclose their donors met with skepticism among most of the U.S. Supreme Court’s justices during a hearing Monday.
The law is opposed by coalitions of nonprofit organizations that say the disclosures could dry up their contributions and trample the privacy of donors.
The law’s supporters say it is a hedge against “dark money” that can sway elections and allow corporations to evade responsibility for influence-peddling.
The law requires nonprofits that solicit donations to identify their substantial donors to the California attorney general. A failure to comply could make them lose their legal status as nonprofits.
The law is opposed by a coalition of nonprofit organizations represented by Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center.
Their attorney, Derek L. Shaffer, told the Supreme Court the law is a “a totally gratuitous First Amendment violation.”
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bans government laws or actions that interfere with freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Justice Samuel Alito largely agreed the law infringes on First Amendment rights of the organizations.
He said nonprofits that take “unpopular” positions might have “reasons to fear reprisal” against their contributors, even when they are truthfully expressing their opinions.
He also cast doubt on the California attorney general’s argument the state would keep the list of donors confidential.
Recent history demonstrated “massive breaches” of confidentiality by state regulators of the data, Alito said.
Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that donors of large amounts of money that help keep nonprofits afloat might be dissuaded from contributing “because they have reduced or no confidence that their contribution will be kept confidential.”
The Supreme Court’s liberal justices admitted to misgivings about the breadth of the law but said they understood the reasoning behind it, namely concern over dark money.
Dark money normally refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations that are not bound by the donation limits imposed on political candidates. They can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions without needing to report it to state governments.
As a result, donors can spend money to influence elections without voters knowing the source of it.
Justice Stephen Breyer expressed concern that the Americans for Prosperity Foundation case “is really a stalking case” for campaign finance laws.
A group of Democratic U.S. senators filed an amicus brief in the case that also warned about how a ruling striking down the California law might negatively affect campaign financing.
“Political spending by opaque entities with hidden funders has come to dominate the public sphere, unchecked by the scrutiny that transparency once provided,” the brief says.
An unusual assortment of liberal and conservative groups filed briefs that agreed with the nonprofits. They included the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the Cato Institute and the Institution for Justice.
A tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its federal annual return, including Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF).
The regulations specifically exclude the name and address of any contributor to the organization from the definition of disclosable documents. Contributor names and addresses listed on an exempt organization’s exemption application are subject to disclosure, however.
This general exclusion for contributor information on annual returns does not apply to private foundations, or to political organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Certain tax-exempt political organizations must report the name and address, and the occupation and employer (if an individual), of any person that contributes in the aggregate $200 or more in a calendar year. Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file Form 990, including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information.
A U.S. District Court in California already struck down the law but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it, saying the law “is substantially related to an important state interest in policing charitable fraud.”
In The News
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and let... Read More
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and let states decide whether to regulate abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb, the office of Mississippi's Republican attorney general argued in papers filed Thursday... Read More
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear a case in its next term that could expand rights of... Read More
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear a case in its next term that could expand rights of discrimination victims to collect compensation for "emotional distress." A ruling that allows the compensation could widely broaden the liability for discrimination, potentially allowing anyone victimized by... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California law that required nonprofits to disclose lists of their... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California law that required nonprofits to disclose lists of their biggest donors, holding the requirement burdened donors’ First Amendment rights and was not narrowly tailored to an important government interest. In a 6-3 ruling authored by... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to uphold two provisions of Arizona’s election law that critics argued unfairly impinged... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to uphold two provisions of Arizona’s election law that critics argued unfairly impinged on the rights of Black, Hispanic and Native Americans voters. By a 6-3 margin, the justices held that a 2016 law that limits who can return... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday a company building a natural gas pipeline in New Jersey can continue to... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday a company building a natural gas pipeline in New Jersey can continue to rely on eminent domain to claim state land in its path. The 5-4 ruling by the court included both liberal and conservative members of the court... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court and its summer break. But even before the justices wrap up their work, likely later this week, they could say whether they'll add more high-profile issues... Read More