Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Supreme Court hears case that could endanger election transparency rules

Supreme Court

The oral arguments were about a First Amendment challenge to California's charitable donor disclosure law.

renaschild/Getty Images

The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case that could have lasting implications for transparency in election spending, even though that issue is not part of the debate.

Two conservative advocacy groups, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center, are challenging a California law that requires nonprofits (like themselves) to confidentially report their largest donors to state regulatory officers, claiming it violates their free speech rights.

While this case is about the reporting rules for charities and other tax-exempt organizations, good-government advocates are concerned about a decision opening the door for successful challenges to campaign finance transparency rules — or to the disclosure requirements for the millionaires, businesses and advocacy groups that spend exorbitant amounts to influence elections.


During almost two hours of oral arguments, the justices grappled with the question of whether the First Amendment prohibits California from requiring tax-exempt charities to report, confidentially and for state oversight purposes, their major donors. A decision from the conservative-majority court is expected by the end of June.

California is widely regarded as the gold standard for donor disclosure laws, both political and otherwise. If the Supreme Court blocks the state's nonpublic disclosure rule for charities, then its public disclosure rules for election spending could also be in jeopardy. This would be a blow to transparency not only in the Golden State, but to other states looking to emulate California's standards.

"A case about California's constitutional and confidential tax reporting laws should not turn into a case about well-established precedents for a voter's right to know who is spending in elections. A reason we are involved in this case is there is a risk that could happen," said Beth Rotman, money in politics and ethics program director at Common Cause, which filed an amicus brief in support of California's law.

Since 2010, California has required nonprofits to provide the state attorney general with 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 California officials say it helps the state combat fraud and misuse of charitable contributions.

But the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, founded by the influential GOP megadonors Charles and David Koch, and the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Catholic legal group, argue California has failed to keep certain donor records confidential and their donors could face potential harassment from the public.

In 2014, the two groups 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. Following that decision, the two groups appealed their consolidated case to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in January.

This dispute over California's disclosure law has become one of the highest profile cases on the Supreme Court's docket this year (at least among those who monitor campaign finance laws) because of the implications it holds for transparency across the board.

The two conservative groups are seeking a ruling that invalidates California's disclosure law as unconstitutional, or at minimum exempts them from having to adhere to it.

The concern among good-government groups is that if an exemption is granted, it could be expanded in the future and ultimately relieve the two petitioners or other nonprofits from campaign finance disclosure rules.

"The problem is that if the Americans for Prosperity Foundation wins at the Supreme Court, every nonprofit that launders dark money for corporations or the wealthy will rely on this new case to keep the dark money sources under wraps. And that's bad news for our democracy," Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote in an article about the case.

The Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington and the League of Women Votersof California — joined with Common Cause on an amicus brief in support of California's disclosure law. They wrote that the challenge to California's nonpublic reporting requirement is "a solution in search of a problem," and that the First Amendment injury claim by the two petitioners is "highly speculative" and contrary to their own experience.

"Neither petitioner has demonstrated that California's nonpublic reporting requirement imposes an 'actual burden' on expressive or associational rights," the brief states. "Yet their entire legal argument — and their demand for the most stringent degree of constitutional scrutiny — rest on the presumption that donor disclosure laws 'always [represent] a severe burden on First Amendment rights.'"

But the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center are using a 1958 Supreme Court case to argue they don't have to reveal their donors to the state of California, even on a confidential basis.

In NAACP v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that the NAACP did not have to release the names of its members because it would have put Black people at risk of harassment, or worse, in the Deep South in the 1950s. The Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center are arguing their donors will also face harassment, so they have a constitutional right to keep them confidential (which they already are by California law).

Historically, the Supreme Court has strongly upheld disclosure laws, but it's not clear to legal experts how the three newest justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett) will rule on transparency issues.

For Barrett, this case in particular could be a conflict of interest. The political advocacy affiliate of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation acknowledged spending "seven figures" — but did not disclose an exact amount — on advertising in support of Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court last fall.

As a result, three Democratic lawmakers wrote a letter urging Barrett to recuse herself from the case, USA Today reported. But she did participate in Monday's arguments.

Read More

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Why Doing Immigration the “White Way” Is Wrong

The president is granting refugee status to white South Africans. Meanwhile, he is issuing travel bans, unsure about his duty to uphold due process, fighting birthright citizenship, and backing massive human rights breaches against people of color, including deporting citizens and people authorized to be here.

The administration’s escalating immigration enforcement—marked by “fast-track” deportations or disappearances without due process—signal a dangerous leveling-up of aggressive anti-immigration policies and authoritarian tactics. In the face of the immigration chaos that we are now in, we could—and should—turn our efforts toward making immigration policies less racist, more efficient, and more humane because America’s promise is built on freedom and democracy, not terror. As social scientists, we know that in America, thinking people can and should “just get documented” ignores the very real and large barriers embedded in our systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

A pump jack seen in a southeast New Mexico oilfield.

Getty Images, Daniel A. Leifheit

Supreme Court Changes the Game on Federal Environmental Reviews

Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now.

In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game.

Keep ReadingShow less