School, college and other closings for Monday

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with rich donors and their desire to remain anonymous against a state law aimed at policing the finances of charities and other nonprofits. 

By a 6 to 3 vote, the court struck down California's law requiring nonprofits to file a list of their large donors with the state. The court said that the law subjected donors to potential harassment, chilling their speech in violation of the First Amendment. 

Under the California law, the tax-exempt groups were to attach to their filings with the state a copy of their IRS form reporting the names and addresses of all donors who gave more than $5,000 or 2 percent of the organization's total donations.

The case was brought by  the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a

founded by Charles Koch and his brother David Koch, who died in 2019, as well as the Thomas More Law Center, another conservative group. 

Historically, it is state attorneys general who police charities, and in California, a state with 115,000 charities, that is a big job.

Jan Masaoka, the CEO of the California Association of Nonprofits, compares the California regime to the Federal Aviation Administration's system of regulation. Just as the FAA needs information from airplane manufacturers and airlines to ensure safety in air travel, California and other states need information from charities to ferret out 

"All of us — nonprofits and donors — we want to have that confidence that the rules are being enforced, and we need the [state] attorney general to do that," Masaoka says.

"This fight is a skirmish in a larger war," observes Sean Delaney, who headed up enforcement for a similar law in New York state. Whether New York's regime or similar provisions in other states can remain in place remains an open question now that the Supreme Court has invalidated the California law. 

Even more important could be the effect on federal and state laws that require public disclosure of the names of campaign contributors. In the political context, the Supreme Court has long ruled that such disclosure 

constitutional because it serves the important public interest of accountability by disclosing who has skin in the game of influencing government policy. Indeed, public disclosure is perhaps the only remaining check on political contributions, and some political contributors would like to see it eliminated, too. In fact, so too would some members of the Supreme Court's conservative wing. 

At the same time, tax regulators would like to see oversight rules toughened up to prevent tax-exempt charities from being used for partisan purposes.

Thursday's decision, however, could put the kibosh on that idea. In fact, the decision is likely  to make the job of any agency watchdog a lot harder. 

Politics and Government News

Nina Totenberg

Author

By a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that California unconstitutionally applied its law requiring nonprofits to file a list of their large donors with the state.

The Supreme Court guts a state law requiring nonprofits to name their rich donors

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox