The Supreme Court ruled today that California charities do not have to report the names and addresses of top donors, as that violates the First Amendment:
BREAKING: Supreme Court invalidates California requirement that charities list names and addresses of their top donors in filings with the state, saying rule violates First Amendment. Vote is 6-3, w/ three liberals dissenting.
— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) July 1, 2021
Naturally, the New York Times covered it, pretty much as you’d expect them to:
Breaking News: The Supreme Court rejected California’s requirement that charities report the identities of major donors, siding with conservative groups who said the disclosures could lead to harassment. https://t.co/lU6a9z32EA
— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 1, 2021
See what they did there? Forbes did it, too:
Supreme Court Sides With Conservative Groups, Empowers Dark Money Groups With Ruling Striking Down California Donor Law https://t.co/f9PIaOz4ZL pic.twitter.com/HJ8j65s12Z
— Forbes (@Forbes) July 1, 2021
“Conservative groups.”
California's requirement was challenged by Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a group affiliated with the Koch family, and the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian public-interest law firm. They said it violated the First Amendment. https://t.co/V5EqtkofhK
— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 1, 2021
It was also challenged by “conservative groups” like PETA, SPLC, and the NAACP:
*siding with lots of groups on both sides—including the ACLU, PETA, the HRC, and the NAACP—who like the First Amendment https://t.co/xydtDJes1u
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) July 1, 2021
The ACLU also opposed this because it has long been considered an impediment to speech to allow the sort of harassment these disclosures induce. https://t.co/uEAV4P2MGE
— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) July 1, 2021
Recommended
Another group that opposes this: the NAACP. The NAACP opposes this, in part, because Alabama tried to get its membership rolls 70 years ago to target agitators. Congrats, people who oppose this ruling: you’re on the side of Alabama 70 years ago. https://t.co/jOW8KfkXMl pic.twitter.com/oPUAh3d4Xu
— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) July 1, 2021
This is actually factually not true. Major progressive groups from @HRC to @ACLU to @CAIRNational and more filed amicus briefs siding with the conservative group that sued. @nytimes is not being honest about the situation. https://t.co/0HlvZag0On
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) July 1, 2021
"Siding with conservative groups."
The ACLU, the NAACP, Human Rights Fund, PETA, and the Southern Poverty Law Center all filed amicus briefs saying California's law should be overturned for violating the First Amendment. https://t.co/hcgPJreRPT
— Rachel Bovard (@rachelbovard) July 1, 2021
It is possible that no constitutional case has ever seen the diversity of amici present in AFPF v Bonta. They include religious, secular, LGBT, pro-life, pro-choice, racial justice, animal rights, human rights, colleges, ballets, museums and more. https://t.co/E7Hatn5ZVQ
— Casey Mattox (@CaseyMattox_) June 30, 2021
Amici supporting AFPF include ACLU, NAACP, HRC, SPLC, Doctors Without Borders, CAIR, PEN America, First Amendment Lawyers Association, Knight Institute at Columbia U, DKT Liberty Project, Defending Rights & Dissent, Electronic Frontier Foundation and on and on.
— Casey Mattox (@CaseyMattox_) June 30, 2021
“Siding with conservative groups” is extremely inaccurate. AFPF drew unprecedented support from organizations along the entire ideological and political spectrum. Learn more here: https://t.co/TWWt9I3hwC First Amendment rights belong to everyone. https://t.co/m7jq8F5Tqa
— Sarah Quinlan (@sarahmquinlan) July 1, 2021
Guess the New York Times and Forbes don’t agree.
Not to be outdone, here’s NPR’s take on the decision:
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has struck down a California law requiring nonprofits to disclose their large donors with the state — siding with rich donors and their desire to remain anonymous.https://t.co/5vj20FVjqZ
— NPR (@NPR) July 1, 2021
“Siding with rich donors.”
NPR thinks only the rich have reasons to be concerned https://t.co/jena4j9GBq
— Joe Gabriel Simonson (@SaysSimonson) July 1, 2021
“The rich” do have reasons to be concerned. But so does everyone else.
No they sides with ALL donors and their desire to remain anonymous. Your bias is showing.
— Coach Chollie Strong (@USFChollyStrong) July 1, 2021
Seriously, what’s wrong with donors wanting anonymity?
It's incredibly how the left sees nearly everything through the prism of race or class and never principles or laws. https://t.co/J8Tv6HXti4
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) July 1, 2021
https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/1410606133014761483
Maybe NPR should put their money where their mouth is and disclose all of their rich donors.
Misleading headline. The opinion applied to all charities and the coalition of lawyers were both democrat and republican attorneys that fought against the law. Stop being a propaganda outlet.
— sdonabedian7 (@sdonabedian7) July 1, 2021
Can’t stop, won’t stop.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member