Ian Millhiser for Vox:
The Supreme Court will hear a large case on April 26 that could fundamentally alter the Court’s approach to laws requiring political organizations to disclose their sponsors – rather The exchange can make it easier for big spenders to hide the ways they try to influence policy and elections.
Where it is The American Foundation for Prosperity sued Rodriquez. But to fully understand it, it is important to keep in mind the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC(2010).
United citizenship it is best known for supporting the anti-classical that corporations can spend unlimited money to influence elections. While the five judges listened United citizenship voted to repeal most of the nation’s campaign finance law, eight judges also voted that the government has broad authority to ask lobbying groups to disclose key sponsors about the main activity. their values.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote to the Court it is necessary to comply with disclosure requirements, as long as there is a “substantial relationship” between the disclosure request and the “materially sufficient” interest of the government. “
A lot has changed since then United citizenship However, included the ruling in favor of this revelation in its broader ruling on the financial limits of the campaign. Four of the eight judges in favor of the disclosure rules have left the Court, and three of them have been replaced by significantly more conservative judges than the ones they replaced.
That brings us to American Society for Prosperity. The plaintiffs in the case – which includes a conservative advocacy group closely linked with the Koch billionaire brothersand the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative law firm that claims it was set up to promote “American Judeo-Christian heritage”- seek to reduce pro-information disclosure decisions, such as United citizenship. And, with six Republican nominees appointed to the Supreme Court, they have a very good chance of winning.
Specific problem in Americans for prosperity This is a fairly distant field of fundamental questions about money in animation politics United citizenship. The plaintiffs objected to a California regulation that requires charities wishing to raise California tax-deductible funds to disclose their largest contributors to the state attorney general’s office. State regulations require the attorney general to keep this information confidential from the public, but the attorney general’s office may use it to investigate nonprofit fraud allegations.