During the reign of Obama I, his administration weaponized the IRS. They leaked private non-profit donor lists to left-wing activist groups who then terrorized those donors or their employers. California made that legal.
The Belle of the Left Coast Ball justified this infringement of freedom of association by claiming a need to investigate potential charitable misconduct. California lawmakers made the case that this would help THEM identify fraud.
Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Center refused to release the names of donors and filed suit.
Related: IRS Used Donor Lists to Target Audits
The Supremes took the case and ruled that California’s Law is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court found a “dramatic mismatch” rather than a close connection between California’s “dragnet for sensitive donor information” and its claimed objective of preventing charitable fraud. California had not only previously failed to enforce its Schedule B disclosure requirement, but did not actually use that information when it investigated charities.
Instead, the Supreme Court found that California’s real reason for demanding this information was convenience, to simply have the information “close at hand, just in case” it might be useful. That was not nearly enough to justify the risk that the donor information might be disclosed.
In case it might be useful as political leverage. And it’s not as if anyone thinks differently regardless of ideology. “American Civil Liberties Union and the Independent Women’s Law Center, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Gun Owners of America, and the Human Rights Campaign and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund,” all wrote briefs opposing the law.
Campaign donor lists are public information that is used by both sides to identify supporters. But you know upfront – or you should – that when you donate a certain amount, everyone will know whom you support. This is necessary to at least attempt to put some transparency in the buying and selling of politicians.
Private, NGO, and issue advocacy groups get special protections. While they may influence policy, they are not elected entities, and the Obama Administration proved why those privacy protections exist. Regardless of which side you support, to quote Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion, “When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan dissented.
