On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the key First Amendment case Americans for Prosperity v. Rodriguez, which centers on the State of California's requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their donor information to the state.
Back in 2015, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris demanded that two conservative nonprofits, Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Law Center, hand over their donor lists.
When California's lawyers argued that most non-profits would not object to providing donor lists, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, "That's not how the First Amendment works." She noted that speech zones on college campuses may violate the First Amendment even if most students support speech zones.
While California claims the Kamala Harris donor disclosure mandate is necessary for fraud investigations, Bursch noted that "California has never used the schedule B information that it collects in advance" for its investigations, and it "Never has a problem getting that information after the fact."
California's lawyers argued that if the Supreme Court strikes down Kamala Harris' donor disclosure requirement, the ruling may hamper the Internal Revenue Service's ability to enforce the disclosures mandated in campaign finance law.
PJ Media asked the panel whether the SPLC's accusation against TMLC makes Kamala Harris' donor disclosure mandate more dangerous, especially considering the Democrats' reliance on the SPLC, the Democrats' new domestic "War on terror" after the Capitol riot, and Michigan's reliance on the SPLC "Hate map" to target conservatives in launching a "Hate crimes unit."
Bursch, TMLC's lawyer, condemned the SPLC's accusations as utterly baseless and unfounded, but he did note that the SPLC's smear against TMLC does highlight the threat of Kamala Harris' donor disclosure mandate.
Monday, April 26, 2021
Supreme Court Weighs Kamala Harris Attack on Free Speech
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment