The state of California made it a requirement that tax-exempt non-profit organizations disclose to the state the identity of their top financial donors. This is concerning because the state really has no need for that information, and there are some good reasons donors may wish to preserve their privacy and anonymity. In some situations, donors to certain non-profit organizations with politically controversial goals could even find themselves to target of violent attacks, if that information gets out to the public, or could potentially face persecution from the state. The Thomas More Law Center says the requirement will make their donors vulnerable to retaliation, harassment, and violence. "Charitable entities shouldn’t be required to disclose confidential donor information to state officials who do not need it and who fail to adequately protect donor identities from disclosure to the public," said John Bursch, senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy at the Alliance Defending Freedom legal group. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, brought by Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Law Center. Further details: Qualified tax-exempt organizations already must submit to the IRS a Form 990 federal information form, including the names of “all substantial contributors” in a section called Schedule B. Substantial donors are defined as those who give $5,000 or more to the organization in a year or 2% of total annual contributions. However, the information about these donors must be kept confidential on pain of civil and criminal law. Non-profits that ask for donations in California must file their tax returns with California’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, administered by the state attorney general, currently Xavier Becerra. Beginning in 2010, the California attorney general said that disclosures must include this Schedule B. Alliance Defending Freedom alleged that in March 2012, the California Attorney General's Office began to "harass the law center and demand the names and addresses of its major donors even though the center’s donors, clients, and employees have faced intimidation, death threats, hate mail, boycotts, and even assassination attempts from ideological opponents." "Only the most stalwart supporters will give money under such a toxic cloud. Most will reasonably conclude that the risk of association is too great, with the result that groups who make the most threats will effectively shut down those with whom they disagree," stated the legal group's petition for Supreme Court review. Alliance Defending Freedom has cited the Supreme Court’s 1958 ruling in the case NAACP versus Alabama, which ruled against the Alabama Attorney General’s demands that the civil rights group produce its membership list or cease operations. The restrictions on the group crippled the organization in Alabama at a key time when black Americans sought to secure civil rights. U.S. Supreme Court Takes up Dispute Over California Nonprofit Donor Disclosure Requirement | U.S. News® | US News Warning of donor harassment, Trump administration backs foes of Calif. disclosure rule - Catholic Voice (catholicvoiceomaha.com) According to the Heritage Foundation, "supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry." Much of the hostility directed against Proposition 8 supporters has been facilitated by a California law that requires the disclosure of certain personal information of individuals who donate $100 or more in support of or opposition to a ballot measure. Information subject to disclosure includes the donor's full name, occupation, and employer. Once this information is disclosed to the State of California, the state then publishes this information on its Web site, enabling anyone with Internet access to view detailed donor reports online. With this information at hand, several Web sites have been designed that facilitate the easy identification and targeting of Prop 8 supporters. For example, one of these Web sites is a GoogleMaps "mashup" that combines donor information with an interactive map, allowing activists to ascertain the identity, employer, amount of donation, and approximate location of certain Prop 8 supporters in particular geographic areas. A Web site called "Californians Against Hate" highlights particular Prop 8 supporters in its "Dishonor Roll" and provides addresses and telephone numbers for some of them. At least one Web site allows users to search for Prop 8 supporters who work in their businesses. They go on to cite numerous other cases of vandalism and harassment against Prop 8 supporters (although none of them actually related to donor information getting out). The Price of Prop 8 | The Heritage Foundation
