CNA Staff, Nov 26, 2020 / 11:01 am (CNA).- The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review a challenge to a California requirement that charitable organizations disclose their major donors to the state attorney general, siding with groups like the Thomas More Law Center that say the requirement will make their donors vulnerable to retaliation, harassment, and violence.
The move from the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office drew praise from John Bursch, senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy at the Alliance Defending Freedom legal group.
“Charitable entities shouldn’t be required to disclose confidential donor information to state officials who do not need it and who fail to adequately protect donor identities from disclosure to the public,” Bursch said Nov. 24. “We are pleased that the United States agrees that this case presents critically important issues that the Supreme Court should decide immediately. Forced donor disclosure is a threat to everyone and discourages both charitable giving and participation in the marketplace of ideas.”
Alliance Defending Freedom is backing the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center’s complaint in the case. The center promotes issues related to religious freedom, moral and family values, and the sanctity of human life, Alliance Defending Freedom said in August 2019. Another challenger to the California rules is the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which tends to take conservative or libertarian positions on questions of economics and other issues, including opposition to labor unions.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to grant a hearing on the case, which was victorious in federal district court but suffered a defeat in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
“As this court’s precedents make clear, compelled disclosures that carry a reasonable probability of harassment, reprisals, and similar harms are subject to exacting scrutiny, which requires a form of narrow tailoring,” said the brief to the Supreme Court. The solicitor general’s office said the appeals court ruling “compromises important associational interests protected by the First Amendment.”
“Petitioners alleged that their contributors had in the past suffered harassment, reprisals, and similar harms because of their association with petitioners,” the brief said. Disclosure would likely “expose their substantial contributors to those harms, and thereby deter those contributors and others from making future contributions.”
At issue is a matter of non-profit tax forms and the crucial information they contain.
Qualified tax-exempt organizations already must submit to the IRS a Form 990 federal information form, including the names of “all substantial contributors” in a section called Schedule B. Substantial donors are defined as those who give $5,000 or more to the organization in a year or 2% of total annual contributions. However, the information about these donors must be kept confidential on pain of civil and criminal law.
Non-profits that ask for donations in California must file their tax returns with California’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, administered by the state attorney general, currently Xavier Becerra.
Beginning in 2010, the California attorney general said that disclosures must include this Schedule B. The incoming U.S. vice-president Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., was California attorney general from 2011 to 2017, and the rule change began under her predecessor Jerry Brown.
Both the Thomas More Law Center and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation have alleged that there is a high risk their information will be made public and disrupt their freedom of association.
Alliance Defending Freedom alleged that in March 2012, the California Attorney General’s Office began to “harass the law center and demand the names and addresses of its major donors even though the center’s donors, clients, and employees have faced intimidation, death threats, hate mail, boycotts, and even assassination attempts from ideological opponents.”
The legal group said that for those associated with charities like the Thomas More Law Center that “speak on contentious matters,” the disclosure of donor information “poses an imminent danger of hate mail, violence, ostracization, and boycotts.”
“Only the most stalwart supporters will give money under such a toxic cloud. Most will reasonably conclude that the risk of association is too great, with the result that groups who make the most threats will effectively shut down those with whom they disagree,” said the legal group’s request for Supreme Court review.
“Charities will continue to find as-applied exemptions impossible to achieve, and support for groups advocating contentious ideas will dry up,” the legal group said. “This Court should intervene now while there are still dissenting voices left to save.”
The request said California law has “deprived charities of resources, chilled their speech for nine years, and blocked dissemination of their ideas in our Nation’s most populous state.”
Alliance Defending Freedom has cited the Supreme Court’s 1958 ruling in the case NAACP v. Alabama, which ruled against the Alabama Attorney General’s demands that the civil rights group produce its membership list or cease operations. The restrictions on the group crippled the organization in Alabama at a key time when black Americans sought to secure civil rights.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
The district court found that California’s required disclosures were not “substantially related” to its interest in regulating charities, as auditors and attorneys seldom use the Schedule B section when they audit or investigate charities. Even when the information was relevant, it could be obtained from other sources. The disclosure requirement was not narrowly tailored.
The district court said petitioners presented “ample evidence” that their contributors had previously suffered “harassment, reprisals, and similar harms” when their involvement became known. The California attorney general’s office had “systematically failed to maintain the confidentiality of Schedule B forms.” This failure included making hundreds of the forms available on its registry website.
The court of appeals, however, overturned the district court. It said confidentiality measures had been tightened and said California had a compelling interest in policing fraud in charitable organizations, and disclosing major donors advances this interest, Reuters reported.
It compared the rule to political disclosure cases such as Doe v. Reed, where the Supreme Court said that the disclosure of the names of people who signed a petition referendum was relevant to state interests in protecting the electoral process.
Alliance Defending Freedom’s summary of the case said, “the California Attorney General’s office has a history of posting supporter’s information online and offers no protection against employees, contractors, or summer interns downloading, e-mailing, or printing supporters’ names and addresses and then disclosing them publicly.”
“We’ve already seen how publicly revealing political donors with the intent of doing harm (or ‘doxing’) can ruin careers and corrode civil discourse,” the legal group said. “Givers would have good reason to fear being doxed—especially in today’s toxic cultural climate.”
The Thomas More Law Center’s president and chief counsel is Richard Thompson, who came to prominence for opposing prominent assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian. Thompson co-founded the law center in in 1998 with Thomas Monaghan, the founder of Domino’s Pizza who continues to be a prominent Catholic philanthropist. Alliance Defending Freedom said about 5% of donors to the law center are California residents.
Besides issues related to religious freedom and family values, the law center’s website also provides resources for critics of the Common Core curriculum. It names other key issues as “confronting the threat of radical Islam” and “defending national security.”
The similarly-named Thomas More Society, based in Illinois, is not connected to the law center.
For its part, Americans for Prosperity was founded in 2004. It has had strong financial support from two wealthy brothers, David and Charles Koch, whose combined net worth is in the billions of dollars.
[…]
I was shocked and angry with Sister Dede Byrne’s speech in supporting the most despicable monster we have ever had in the Oval Office. She forgot to mention his ordering the separation of parents from their children. Children put in concentration camps in cages with no health care, poor quality of food and no one accountable. She forgot to mention the republican platform of taking away all the financial safety nets for these poor girls who get pregnant. The republican pro lifers care only about the fetus and once that baby takes a breath they walk away. Trump has been accused of sexually molesting at least 25 young women. He has been accused of raping a 14 tear old. He cheated on all three wives, paid off a porn star. He is a disgrace to the USA, As a Catholic I was appalled with cardinal Dolan’s support of this non christian who makes horrible comments about women. If this is what the Catholic Church is supporting I want no part of it. I will find a more healthy religion that does not exploit the poor, especially young women. I will never set foot in a Catholic Church again. If you don’t print this it will show me again what hypocrites you are.
You’re always welcome back.
See the movie ‘Unplanned’.
Patricia, Where do I even start? So many lies and half truths that you uttered but our faith still clings to the hope that your eyes will see the light. You sound like a teacher that is always listening to NPR, am I close?
No, I am a registered nurse who has seen the dark side of the Church. These are not half truths, these statements are true. Separation of children from their parents, put in cages with no medical care, dispute that. The Republican Party has waged a battle against the poor and Nolan is despicable. I think he likes the good fat life.
I could go on and on about things the church has done hiding pedophile priests and allowed it go on and on. My eyes have seen the light but obviously you have not. If you don’t acknowledge the problem then there will be no solution. The Catholic Church is a giant Boys Club. If it were run by competent women a lot of the problems would have been solved before it became criminal. Like hiding Law in the Vatican so he didn’t have to face criminal charges, no denying that.
Patricia,
I think anyone familiar with border security would dispute your comments. Children are routinely brought across the border by adults not related to them and once apprehended are kept apart from adults for their own safety.
Human traffickers should be the target of our righteous anger, not the decent men and women serving along the border.
This woman only expressed her opinion. She has zero authority to speak on behalf of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I hope everyone who reads or sees her speech realizes that. She has no more authority than you or I, she’s just offering her opinion while wearing a habit. Personally I find it disgusting to claim you are pro life when what you actually are is pro birth and who cares what happens to them once they are in the world.
Karen,
I hope your comments aren’t directed at Sister Deirdre? From what I’ve read she’s dedicated her entire life to others. That’s a far fetch from disregarding life outside of the womb.
I hope we’re all strongly pro-birth. Nothing beneficial can be enjoyed without first having being born.
🙂
Its now November, and Trump is trying to set up a dictatorship in America. S. Deirdre may have meant well, but she has given support to a ruthless tyrant. Religious should not speak out about politics. I suppose she wants Rome to reclaim the Papal States. Laws won’t stop abortion (an old Priest who I deeply respected told me that). The only way to stop abortion is to change people’s hearts. She supported a egocentric bigot who wouldn’t know religion if it hit him on the head (Remember 2 Corinthians?). I grew up near Dallas Tx in the 1950’s. Abortion was “illegal”, but it was common knowledge that if a woman wanted an abortion, she could check locations and prices to find the underground clinic of her choice. Our Catholic cemetery has two of the casualties of bargain basement abortions from the early 1960’s. Beautiful young girls who needlessly died. Laws don’t change peoples behavior. Think Prohibition. Some of you need to grow up. Instead of supporting crooked politicians, support maternity shelters, etc. I do. Deep down I think many Catholics are rabidly anti-abortion because they like the politics of many Republicans. Scribes and Pharases all.
Oh, flapdoodle. Seriously. A “ruthless tyrant?” What has he done that is so ruthlessly tyrannical? Saved babies? Protected religious freedom?
“Abortion was “illegal”, but it was common knowledge that if a woman wanted an abortion, she could check locations and prices to find the underground clinic of her choice.”
It wasn’t “illegal,” it was illegal. And while possibly people determined to do such an evil thing could find out a way to do it, I am quite certain that it was not as widespread as it is now.
“Our Catholic cemetery has two of the casualties of bargain basement abortions from the early 1960’s.”
Two, huh? Two who broke secular as well as moral law, and died doing it. Does your Catholic cemetary have room for the sixty million babies who have been killed since Roe v. Wade?
As far as the statistics on death because of illegal abortions, in the 1960’s as well as other times: https://www.liveaction.org/news/women-died-illegal-abortion-roe/
“Deep down I think many Catholics are rabidly anti-abortion because they like the politics of many Republicans.”
Deep down I think many pseudo-Catholics are rabidly Democratic because they want abortion to be legal.
“Scribes and Pharases all.”
Should I join in your version of Christian charity and say “Worshipers of Moloch all?”