FAN 199.11 (First Amendment News) Supreme Court Rejects Stay in Crossroads Campaign Disclosure Case

This from Professor Richard Hasen over at the Election Law Blog:

“With no noted dissents, the Supreme Court has turned down Crossroad GPS’s request for emergency relief from an order that will require disclosure of more of its donors who are contributing money to influence federal elections.”

“As I wrote last week, ‘With 4 Justices strongly in favor of disclosure on the Court, I would guess that this results in an eventual denial of the stay, either by a majority vote or a 4-4 split (which keeps the lower court decision in place), unless this is held long enough for Judge Kavanaugh to join the Court.’ . . .”

Continued here.


You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    And, when people start losing their jobs, and getting death threats, over the donations list California hands over to hostile parties, (Because you know that’s why they want this disclosure: It’s an enemies list.) the Court will quietly ignore it.

  2. Joe says:

    SCOTUS, however, didn’t disclose WHY it acted the way it did.

    The Supreme Court has supported disclosure laws (with limits) is cases like Doe v. Reed which had one dissent. Scalia in particular was firmly in support with the legality of disclosure laws. At issue here is a corporation, with special privileges given to the state, set up for a public purpose.

    Disclosure laws have been on the books for a long time. They provide a means to show how money influences politicians. Money leads to legislators to do things that “loses jobs” and can result in things that threaten well being, including threats in some cases. So, when people vote, it would be helpful to know the sources of money, which is quite often at least a quasi-bribe.

    This was a concern back to the Founding. Disclosure laws, at least when dealing with corporations set up for a public purpose, have long been deemed not to threaten First Amendment principles. For those who are concerned about history being a guide of what the text means. So, I understand why the law was upheld and why the people of the state — who are of various persuasions and donate to various sides — supported the law. OTOH, others are more supportive of not having limits on the government, trusting it more.

  3. Joe says:

    Moving past the alleged problem with disclosures of donations to corporations with special privileges given to them by the government involved in electing public officials, I note that California law bans private employers from discriminating against workers due to their political views, affiliations, or activities.

    • Brett Bellmore says:

      And yet, somehow, Brendan Eich still lost his job. Strange, that.

      Remember this? It was illegal, too.

      The purpose here is transparency, alright. The purpose, is, transparently, to comply enemy lists for retaliation.