Supreme Court ruling is a damning condemnation of Harris and Xavier Becerra

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  4 weeks ago  •  18 comments

By:   Kaylee McGhee White (MSN)

Supreme Court ruling is a damning condemnation of Harris and Xavier Becerra
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 this week that California's donor disclosure requirement violated donors' First Amendment rights and is thus unconstitutional. State officials upset with the decision should thank Vice President Kamala Harris and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, both of whom served as California's attorney general at different times, for making it necessary.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 this week that California's donor disclosure requirement violated donors' First Amendment rights and is thus unconstitutional. State officials upset with the decision should thank Vice President Kamala Harris and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, both of whom served as California's attorney general at different times, for making it necessary.

© Provided by Washington Examiner

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that California didn't even bother to enforce the donor disclosure requirement until 2010, which is when Harris became the state's attorney general. At that time, Harris's office demanded that all nonprofit groups seeking to raise money in the state report the names and addresses of their major donors nationwide. And although she claimed this information would be kept private, Roberts noted a lower court found that California "was unable to ensure the confidentiality of donors' information."

One of the nonprofit organizations that sued the state "identified nearly 2,000 confidential Schedule Bs that had been inadvertently posted to the Attorney General's website, including dozens that were found the day before trial," Roberts wrote. An expert witness for the plaintiffs "also discovered that he was able to access hundreds of thousands of confidential documents on the website simply by changing a digit in the URL."

In other words, California not only demanded that nonprofit groups hand over confidential, sensitive data, but it also then made that data available to the general public by opening up these disclosures to public record requests and failing to supervise the third-party vendors who accessed the registry.

And who was the one responsible for these mistakes? Harris's office — and, later, Becerra's.

Roberts agreed with the lower court that California's donor disclosure requirement had a "chilling" effect on potential donors, many of whom had good reason to remain anonymous. He pointed to evidence provided by the plaintiffs that several of their supporters had been "subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical violence." Despite this, Harris and Becerra continued to compile a wealth of information, including sensitive details such as an individual donor's home address, and took to court any nonprofit organization that refused to comply with the mandate.

Harris and Becerra proved time and time again throughout their respective tenures as California's attorney general that they did not care one lick about constitutional liberties. Harris spent years targeting the Americans for Prosperity Foundation simply because it was funded by the libertarian-conservative Koch brothers, and Becerra used the majority of his time in office to sue Catholic nuns who believed that Obamacare's contraceptive mandate violated their religious beliefs.

At least the Supreme Court saw Harris and Becerra as the power-hungry authoritarians that they are. Let's hope that the next California attorney general is better.

Tags:Beltway Confidential, Opinion, Supreme Court, California, Kamala Harris, Xavier Becerra, Law, Fundraising, First Amendment

Original Author:Kaylee McGhee White

Original Location:Supreme Court ruling is a damning condemnation of Harris and Xavier Becerra


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

Another sterling example of Democratic "leadership".

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2  Dulay    4 weeks ago

Another sterling example of bias RW journalism. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @2    4 weeks ago

Prove it wrong. Point out which parts are inaccurate and provide backup proving it. Shouldn't be that damn hard.

The left would be going nuts if were Republican AG's were going after leftist non profit donor information and doxing them.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Expert
2.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    4 weeks ago

When they can't refute the facts, they resort to disparaging the source and mocking the messenger.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    4 weeks ago
Prove it wrong.

First off, Harris did NOT become California's AG in 2010. She took office in Jan. 2011. So the author was WRONG about Harris having ANYTHING to do with the actions that motivated the lawsuit in 2010. 

That kind of kicks a big fucking gapping hole in the articles posit...

The lawsuit has been ongoing since then and until litigation was finalized, both Harris and Xavier were sworn to uphold the law as passed by the legislature and authorized by the judiciary. 

Oh and BTFW, the vast majority of the statements in the article are unsupported. They're merely proclamations by the author. 

The left would be going nuts if were Republican AG's were going after leftist non profit donor information and doxing them.

Is it your posit that only RW non profits information was available online? Prove it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
When they can't refute the facts, they resort to disparaging the source and mocking the messenger.

I DID refute falsehoods in the article. Unlike you and yours, I don't swill RW dogma. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
First off, Harris did NOT become California's AG in 2010. She took office in Jan. 2011

She was elected in 2010, took office in January 2011.

Doesn't really matter now, does it?

Doesn't matter now as SCOTUS has ruled already and struck down the California law.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    4 weeks ago
She was elected in 2010, took office in January 2011. Doesn't really matter now, does it?

Since it makes the posit of seeded article WRONG, yes. 

Doesn't matter now as SCOTUS has ruled already and struck down the California law.

If it 'doesn't matter' then how the fuck can it be 'damning condemnation of Harris and Xavier' Tex? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
2.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
he author was WRONG about Harris having ANYTHING to do with the actions that motivated the lawsuit in 2010. 

The actions that motivated the lawsuit occurred in 2013.  In 2013, Harris, the AG, certified the 2011 AFP filing as incomplete making AFP an inactive charity. 

h Harris and Xavier were sworn to uphold the law  both Harris and Xavier were sworn to uphold the law as passed by the legislature 

What statue did the legislature pass that Harris was upholding in 2013?  Please cite this unsupported allegation. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    4 weeks ago

Ill let you figure that out.

I get it is hard to see any wrong on your heroes and heroines

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.6    4 weeks ago

That's NOT what the SCOTUS said Sean:

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v.
BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA

 In 2010, the State increased its enforcement of charities’ Schedule B disclosure obligations, and the Attorney General ultimately threatened the petitioners with suspension of their registrations and fines for noncompliance. The petitioners each responded by filing suit in District Court, alleging that the compelled disclosure requirement violated their First Amendment rights and the rights of
their donors...
That changed in 2010, when the California Department of Justice “ramped up its efforts to enforce charities’ Schedule B obligations, sending thousands of deficiency letters to charities that had not complied with the Schedule B requirement.” Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, 903 F. 3d 1000, 1006 (CA9 2018).
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    4 weeks ago
Ill let you figure that out.

I figured out that your seed is BS right off and proved it. 

I get it is hard to see any wrong on your heroes and heroines

I get that it is hard to see that your seed is based on utter bullshit but own it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

LOL.

Still haven't figured it out?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    4 weeks ago
LOL. Still haven't figured it out?

I already said and proved that I have Tex. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
4  r.t..b...    4 weeks ago

On this day, of all days, can we put aside the petty differences we suffer through on every other day and simply celebrate the fact that we are fortunate to live in a country where we have the freedom to express those opinions. 

Have a Happy Fourth, all. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
5  r.t..b...    4 weeks ago

…or not…tata folks, it’s been surreal…

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  r.t..b... @5    4 weeks ago

take a break. your voice here cannot be lost.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


JohnRussell
Hallux


23 visitors