The First Amendment protects freedom of association. However, it does not just apply to individuals who are restricted from joining with others in pursuit of common goals. Roberts wrote that there is no danger of association being stifled.This ruling could have a political effect, making it more difficult to comply with donor disclosure requirements for groups that frequently donate large amounts of money to elections. However, they do not stop short of express advocacy for or against candidates.The court ruled that California's mandate for donor information to be turned over to the state by groups was too broad.Roberts stated that in order to make a fair assessment of disclosure's burdens, one must first understand the extent to which they are unnecessary. This requires narrow tailoring.Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesRoberts' ruling didn't address federal government authority to require donor information be filed with the Internal Revenue Service. While most charities still need to maintain a list of donors who have given more than $5,000 over a year, the IRS has removed the requirement from some politically-oriented groups in 2018.Thursday's court ruling dealt with lawsuits brought by two conservative, politically active nonprofit organizations. One of the lawsuits was filed by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. It was supported by Charles Koch and David Koch, political megadonors. The Thomas More Law Center filed the second suit. This Michigan-based legal group that advocates for Catholic causes was funded by Tom Monaghan (founder of Dominos Pizza).Both groups argued that California's requirement to file donor lists with state officials violates the First Amendment. They discourage individuals from giving, and expose them to harassment and threats.In 2016, AFP convinced a Los Angeles federal judge to issue a permanent injunction preventing the requirement. Judge said that the state seldom used the information but frequently disclosed it with public tax returns of charities.Two years later, however, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously reaffirmed that decision. It ruled that the state had a legitimate use for the data and that there was no significant burden on donors by the Koch-founded group.It is unclear how the Supreme Court's decisions will affect similar federal donor-disclosure requirements. In general, the Internal Revenue Service has done a better job keeping confidential filings it receives.Roberts' opinion opens the door for challenges to other disclosure requirements. While strict scrutiny doesn't require disclosure regimes to be as restrictive as possible in achieving their ends it does require that they are narrowly tailored to the government's stated interest.Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in disapproval and was joined by two other liberal-leaning justices. However, she predicted that the decision would open up the floodgates for weakening disclosure requirements.She wrote that today's analysis marks disclosure and reporting requirements with a bullseye. Regulated entities can opt to ignore their obligations by vaguely referring to First Amendment privacy concerns.The rulings of the high court could have a wider impact on Democrats' efforts to increase and broaden disclosure requirements, especially for groups that post ads that mention federal candidates but do not explicitly endorse or oppose them.The For the People Act by congressional Democrats, a massive campaign and ethics legislation, is currently stalled in the Senate due to Democratic infighting, and a successful Republican filibuster. It also includes provisions that would change campaign finance disclosure laws if it were enacted.The bill's hundreds of pages include a long-contested proposal. It would significantly expand the list of organizations that must disclose donors and expenditures, if they spend minimal amounts on communications that mention federal candidates.These measures are being opposed by the majority of Republicans. This is a change from 20 years ago, when prominent GOP leaders supported disclosure rules to limit donations to outside groups.In 2000, Senator Mitch McConnell (R.Ky.), stated that Republicans support disclosure. What is better a small amount of disclosure than a large amount?McConnell stated that he came to the conclusion that rules for groups not engaging in express advocacy, soon after his comments and the passage the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Bill despite his opposition in 2002, that these rules violate the First Amendment. He filed an amicus brief in the AFP case on Thursday, arguing that donor disclosure requirements should be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny when they are viewed in court.AFP and Thomas More Law Center received support from other conservative organizations for their legal challenges, but several liberal groups and First Amendment supporters also urged Supreme Court to uphold donor privacy in these cases.The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as the LGBTQ rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, argued that California's failure to protect donor information violated the rights of conservative groups.The briefing by liberal organizations, which attracted significant attention from conservative justices at oral argument, pushed the court towards a narrow decision that would neither upset disclosure requirements for political campaign campaigns nor address the rights regulators with a better record of confidentiality to gather donor information.
