•   
  •   
  •   

Politics Lawmakers spar in Supreme Court case on nonprofit donor disclosure

14:01  26 april  2021
14:01  26 april  2021 Source:   rollcall.com

Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones calls on Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire

  Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones calls on Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire "Justice Breyer, for whom I have great respect, should retire at the end of this term," Jones said. "My goodness, have we not learned our lesson?"During an interview with Cheddar News, Jones said the 82-year-old Breyer needed to retire in order to grant President Joe Biden the ability to nominate a new justice.

The Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in a pair of cases that members of Congress say could influence political discourse in the United States, warning that the justices either could stymie debates on controversial policies or bolster the influence of big money anonymous donors.

Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor standing in front of a curtain: Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court on Friday. Seated from left: Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Standing from left: Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. © Provided by Roll Call Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court on Friday. Seated from left: Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Standing from left: Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

The cases center on California’s requirement that nonprofits disclose a list of major donors of more than $5,000 to state regulators who seek to police charitable fraud. Nonprofits already must file that information with the Internal Revenue Service, which must keep it confidential.

Supreme Court passes on Second Amendment cases challenging lifetime gun ownership ban

  Supreme Court passes on Second Amendment cases challenging lifetime gun ownership ban The Supreme Court declined to hear three Second Amendment cases challenging a federal ban on gun ownership for people convicted of nonviolent crimes.By not taking the appeals, the nation's highest court let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns and selling counterfeit cassette tapes from owning a gun.

Two charities with histories of backing conservative causes challenged the law as an unconstitutional burden on their freedom of association under the First Amendment because the risk that the state would disclose the information could expose donors to “potential intimidation, retaliation, and harassment,” and dry up the charities’ sources of support.

But the cases play out against the backdrop of a long and contentious debate about the influence of money in politics and shaping public discourse, so it has drawn the attention of lawmakers who have been the most outspoken on the issue.

The cases also touch on some of today’s hot-button issues, including the power of social media, the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters, and even how anonymous donors have tried to influence the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices.

ACLU turns to Supreme Court for access to FISA court rulings

  ACLU turns to Supreme Court for access to FISA court rulings The American Civil Liberties Union is asking the Supreme Court to provide access to the rulings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, arguing there is a First Amendment right to access the classified decisions on the legality of obtaining wiretaps and other surveillance against Americans allegedly tied to foreign intelligence threats. © Provided by Washington Examiner The secretive FISA court, first established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, has almost never released any of its decisions, though it has been thrust into the spotlight in recent years, especially following a Justice Department watchdog

A decision in the cases is expected before the end of the term at the end of June. The justices have a number of paths in the case, including simply sending it back to a lower court or focusing the ruling narrowly on just these two nonprofits.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who has played a leading role in legal challenges to campaign finance laws, filed a brief in the cases to tell the justices that “donor disclosure requirements threaten great practical harm — harassment, boycotts, violence—to those who espouse controversial or unpopular views.”

Supporters of the two charities in this case, Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Thomas More Law Center, faced those dangers, but donors also face “economic reprisals and social ostracism” only made worse by the advent of the internet, McConnell’s brief states.

“That is especially true in an era where a few providers so dominate the flow of information online,” McConnell’s brief states. “Just to take one of innumerable examples, YouTube is able to significantly restrict the flow of information coming out of United States Senate hearings — it takes no imagination to see that powerful media companies could silence, ostracize, or otherwise threaten anyone revealed to contribute to the ‘wrong’ causes.”

Senate Democrats Dodge on Packing the Supreme Court

  Senate Democrats Dodge on Packing the Supreme Court Most Democratic senators refuse to take the idea off the table.Nearly a week later, Markey has yet to gain a single Senate co-sponsor for the bill. But more than a dozen Democratic senators who spoke to National Review in the Capitol refused to unequivocally rule out supporting the plan.

That refers to YouTube’s removal of a video of Senate testimony by a physician on a possible treatment for COVID-19. McConnell’s brief was filed by Don McGahn, a White House counsel under former President Donald Trump.

But a group of Democratic senators told the justices in a brief that the challenges to the California law are “the latest move in a steady and methodical campaign pursued by powerful interests to both cement and obscure their influence over the public sphere” since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

That 5-4 decision in 2010 found that the First Amendment’s free speech rights meant the government could not limit corporations from spending money on elections.

The Democrats say that exploded political spending “by deep-pocketed interests,” and they urge the justices to avoid a ruling in these cases that will more broadly undo disclosure laws, since the Citizens United decision in part depended on transparency of donors to safeguard political integrity.

“The bigger prize being sought is blanket constitutional protection of dark money and secret influence,” the Democratic senators’ brief states.

Supreme Court to debate whether nonprofits must reveal donors despite threat of violence

  Supreme Court to debate whether nonprofits must reveal donors despite threat of violence Some fear the Supreme Court case could apply a new standard with sweeping implications for the disclosure of campaign donors and dark money groups.At issue is a California mandate that nonprofits disclose their top contributors to state regulators. Two conservative groups, including one tied to Republican megadonor Charles Koch, say the state's requirement violates the Constitution by subjecting the donors to threats of violence from political opponents.

The brief was filed by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Richard J. Durbin and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Chris Coons of Delaware, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Mazie K. Hirono of Hawaii, Elizabeth Warren and Edward J. Markey of  Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.

In a separate brief, Maryland Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes, who sponsored legislation that includes provisions to strengthen requirements to disclose campaign-related expenditures and donors, noted that some groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had brought up election-related disclosure in these cases about a California state law.

Sarbanes urged the justices “to take care to cast no doubt” on their previous rulings that upheld disclosure requirements related to elections.

As far as dangers of transparency go, the Democratic senators told the justices that “dark money helped sponsor a rally that prompted a violent insurrection at our Capitol,” and that they place their trust in law enforcement to address whatever threats individuals may face as a result of their public stances.

“If it is good enough for politicians who are far more visible and vulnerable, it should be good enough for the extraordinarily wealthy dark-money influencers dominating our public sphere from the shadows,” the Democratic senators wrote.

Separately, Whitehouse, Blumenthal and Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia wrote to Justice Amy Coney Barrett and asked her to recuse herself from the case, pointing out that Americans for Prosperity Foundation “is the nonprofit arm of the billionaire industrialist Koch family’s Americans for Prosperity, which spent heavily on a campaign to install Barrett on the Court.”

The post Lawmakers spar in Supreme Court case on nonprofit donor disclosure appeared first on Roll Call.

Tech companies join calls for disclosure mandate to meet US emissions goals .
Tech giants, including Salesforce.com, Apple and HP, are joining calls for uniform regulations requiring corporations to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, citing a need for consistent, comparable and reliable data. President Joe Biden last month announced a U.S. target for halving emissions from 2005 levels by the end of this decade. More than 300 businesses working with Ceres, a sustainable investing […] The post Tech companies joinPresident Joe Biden last month announced a U.S. target for halving emissions from 2005 levels by the end of this decade. More than 300 businesses working with Ceres, a sustainable investing nonprofit, wrote to the administration to back that target.

usr: 1
This is interesting!