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

Varying speech bubbles.​ Dialogue. Conversations.

Examining the 2025 episodes that challenged democratic institutions and highlighted the stakes for truth, accountability, and responsible public leadership.

Getty Images, DrAfter123

Why I Was ‘Diagnosed’ With Trump Derangement Syndrome

After a year spent writing columns about President Donald Trump, a leader who seems intent on testing every norm, value, and standard of decency that supports our democracy, I finally did what any responsible citizen might do: I went to the doctor to see if I had "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

I told my doctor about my symptoms: constant worry about cruelty in public life, repeated anger at attacks on democratic institutions, and deep anxiety over leaders who treat Americans as props or enemies. After running tests, he gave me his diagnosis with a straight face: "You are, indeed, highly focused on abnormal behavior. But standing up for what is right is excellent for your health and essential for the health of the country."

Keep ReadingShow less
Empty jury seats in a courtroom.

From courtrooms to redistricting, citizen panels prove impartial judgment is still possible in American democracy.

Getty Images, Mint Images

How Juries and Citizen Commissions Strengthen Democracy

In the ongoing attacks on democracy in 2025, juries and judges played a key role in maintaining normal standards of civil rights. As it turns out, they have something important to teach us about democracy reform as well.

The Power of Random Selection

Juries are an interesting feature of the American legal system. They are assemblies of men and women picked at random, who come together on a one-time basis to perform a key role: rendering an independent judgment in a trial or indictment proceeding. Once they're done, they are free to go home.

Keep ReadingShow less
Social Security card, treasury check and $100 bills
In swing states, both parties agree on ideas to save Social Security
JJ Gouin/Getty Images

Social Security Still Works, but Its Future Is Up to Us

Like many people over 60 and thinking seriously about retirement, I’ve been paying closer attention to Social Security, and recent changes have made me concerned.

Since its creation during the Great Depression, Social Security has been one of the most successful federal programs in U.S. history. It has survived wars, recessions, demographic change, and repeated ideological attacks, yet it continues to do what it was designed to do: provide a basic floor of income security for older Americans. Before Social Security, old age often meant poverty, dependence on family, or institutionalization. After its adoption, a decent retirement became achievable for millions.

Keep ReadingShow less