Monday, February 19, 2018

Citizens United loses free speech appeal over New York donor rules

This is a very troubling ruling.  It may inhibit people from donating to conservative organizations.  People have lost their jobs over such donations, notably Brendan Eich

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday threw out a constitutional challenge by the conservative group Citizens United to New York state’s requirement that registered charities disclose their donors annually.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected claims that the requirement violated the First Amendment because it intimidated donors from contributing, cutting off money needed to conduct free speech, and was a prior restraint on the ability to solicit donations.

Writing for a 3-0 panel, Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler said New York has important interests in stopping fraud and abuse by charities, and requiring them to disclose names, addresses and contributions of their largest donors makes enforcement easier.

“While we think it plausible that some donors will find it intolerable for law enforcement officials to know where they have made donations, we see no reason to believe that this risk of speech chilling is more than that which comes with any disclosure regulation,” Pooler wrote.



Anonymous said...

Liberal judges get it wrong again !

Bird of Paradise said...

We need to remove all liberal actvists judges put there by Clinton and Obama i would'nt have them judges a flower show

Anonymous said...

I am a bit conflicted by this.
On the one hand I think that the benefits enjoyed by charities warrants a fairly high degree of financial transparency and probity.
On the other hand, we live in an age of social vigilantism that is unparalleled and many people may not want to disclose their giving for fear of reprisals. There is little doubt that the causes most likely to attract public ire are traditionally conservative causes.
Tough one.

Anonymous said...

Why couldn't this information be garnered via a subpoena by law enforcement? Why does it require public disclosure, if not for the express purpose of keeping people from donating to "controversial" causes?