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

How the Voting Rights Act Reshaped Texas’ Electoral Maps

President Lyndon B. Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., Clarence Mitchell Jr., Patricia Roberts Harris, and other guests at the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965.

Yoichi Okamoto - Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum

How the Voting Rights Act Reshaped Texas’ Electoral Maps

In 2002, U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Republican, nearly lost his South Texas seat to Democrat Henry Cuellar. So when the GOP used its newfound majority in the state Legislature to redraw the voting maps the next year, they sawed through Cuellar’s hometown of Laredo and scattered Latino voters, who tended to vote Democratic, into other districts.

Latino advocacy groups sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the cornerstone provision of the law that prevents government bodies from diluting the voting power of specific groups. The Supreme Court found Texas lawmakers had taken away Latino voting power “because they were about to exercise it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Our Nation’s Teachers: Appreciated in Name, Dishonored in Practice
a hand writing on a chalkboard

Our Nation’s Teachers: Appreciated in Name, Dishonored in Practice

Earlier this month, the United States celebrated Teacher Appreciation Week, the one week during the year when a Starbucks discount is supposed to stand in for respect. This week is often filled with corporations praising teacher sacrifice, but the Department of Education had a different idea.

Across its social media, the DoE shared images of Ms. Fowl, Ms. Hoover, Mrs. Puff, Miss Nelson, and Ms. Frizzle, fictional teachers who are often well-meaning but marred by burnout, incompetence, eccentricity, and paranoia. If they truly wanted to honor teachers, they could have chosen Ms. Keane from the PowerPuff Girls, Mr. Ratburn from Arthur, or Miss Grotke from Recess — teachers depicted as competent, caring, and respected. But they didn’t. The selection offered plausible deniability. The characters are beloved enough to pass as celebration, but flawed enough to communicate contempt. The White House couldn’t have made its disregard for educators plainer if it tried.

Keep ReadingShow less
Audience members listen as U.S. President Donald Trump.

Audience members listen as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Coosa Steel Corporation on February 19, 2026 in Rome, Georgia.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Heil Trump!

Stop. I am not implying that Trump is the equivalent of Hitler. As I have said in two previous posts suggesting an analogy between Hitler and Trump, while Trump has an evil streak, he is not even close to being as evil as Hitler (see "The Hitler-Trump Analogy" and "Another Hitler-Trump Analogy"). However, Trump has characteristics, and his supporters have characteristics, in common with Hitler and his followers.

Trump is a megalomaniac; his self-aggrandizement knows no bounds. See my article, "Trump - Poster Child of a Megalomaniac." Trump clearly thinks of himself as a man who can do no wrong, the brightest person in the world, a king, a master of the universe. There are no rules that apply to him. As he said in a New York Times interview, "My own morality, my own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me."

Keep ReadingShow less