Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Supreme Court to hear case challenging California donor disclosure law

Xavier Becerra

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra argues the state's disclosure requirement is necessary to prevent charitable fraud.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

California is widely regarded as the gold standard for campaign finance transparency, but one of the state's disclosure rules will soon face scrutiny from the Supreme Court.

The high court agreed last week to hear an appeal, brought by two conservative advocacy groups, that challenges California's law requiring nonprofits to disclose their top donors.

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation, founded by the influential Koch family, and the Thomas Moore Law Center, a conservative Catholic legal group, claim California's law infringes on their rights of free speech and association, but state officials say it is necessary to prevent charitable fraud.


Since 2010 California has required nonprofits to provide, to the state attorney general, the names and addresses of major donors — similar to the federal tax forms charities must send to the IRS. This information is not publicly disclosed, and it "helps the state protect consumers from fraud and the misuse of their charitable contributions," said Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is defending the case for California.

But the two organizations making the appeal say the state has failed to keep certain donor records confidential. In 2014, they filed separate lawsuits on the matter, and federal courts ruled in their favor. But in 2018, their cases were combined in an appeal, and California's law was upheld as constitutional.

"It is clear that the disclosure requirement serves an important governmental interest," Judge Raymond Fisher wrote in the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following this decision, the two groups appealed their consolidated case to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.


Read More

Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026
a person is casting a vote into a box

Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act stands as the direct antithesis of our founders' aspirations for the American Experiment, eroding the core principles of popular sovereignty and individual liberty. Rather than cultivating a government that derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed," this legislative measure inverts that relationship. It transforms a natural right into a government-administered privilege, erecting bureaucratic barriers that conflict with the expansive, participatory democratic republic the Framers sought to construct.

Subverting the Consent of the Governed: the foundational premise of the American Experiment, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is that the legitimacy of a government hinges entirely on the active consent of its citizens. The SAVE Act disrupts this dynamic by fundamentally shifting the burden of proof.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.
The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Where Can Immigration Enforcement Take Place?

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

The Origins: The Clinton Administration

Keep ReadingShow less