quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

The Democratic Attorney, Kamala Harris, for the state of California is requiring all 503(c)(3) educational and charitable organizations within the State of California provide the name and address of all contributors.

This isn’t required by state code, has previously been determined by SCOTUS to be protected speech, and is not relative to an investigative subpoena or investigation.

The Center for Competitive Politics lost it’s bid in both district and appellate courts to not provide this information, and the 9th Circuit shifted the burden of proof to CCP

The CCP has no problem relaying the requested information for an ongoing investigation. The CCP does not promote any political candidate or party.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/14A1179-Center-application.pdf

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/

My thoughts are that is an unwarranted intrusion into the freedom to associate and a probable violation of the first amendment. The fact that the AG is a Democrat or that the CCP appears to be more right leaning (although I found evidence that isn’t necessarily true) sets a bad precedence should the roles be reversed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

As I read the suit that appears to be one of the questions for SCOTUS

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

I have no problem with it - these are tax-exempt organizations and are therefor using tax payer money to support themselves. Where their money comes from and how they spend it should be a matter of public record. There are laws governing just how much of a charitable organizations income must be spent doing actual charitable work. Tax exempt status can be revoked for failure to comply.

To be clear, when an organization does not pay taxes on the money it receives, it costs tax payers that lost revenue. Tax exempt organizations cause the rest of us to pay more in taxes. Imagine how much lower your property tax bill would be if every church had to pay taxes based on the value of their land and buildings (like the rest of us do).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

I have no problem with it - these are tax-exempt organizations and are therefor using tax payer money to support themselves. Where their money comes from and how they spend it should be a matter of public record. There are laws governing just how much of a charitable organizations income must be spent doing actual charitable work. Tax exempt status can be revoked for failure to comply.

To be clear, when an organization does not pay taxes on the money it receives, it costs tax payers that lost revenue. Tax exempt organizations cause the rest of us to pay more in taxes. Imagine how much lower your property tax bill would be if every church had to pay taxes based on the value of their land and buildings (like the rest of us do).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69

I have no problem with it - these are tax-exempt organizations and are therefor using tax payer money to support themselves. Where their money comes from and how they spend it should be a matter of public record. There are laws governing just how much of a charitable organizations income must be spent doing actual charitable work. Tax exempt status can be revoked for failure to comply.

To be clear, when an organization does not pay taxes on the money it receives, it costs tax payers that lost revenue. Tax exempt organizations cause the rest of us to pay more in taxes. Imagine how much lower your property tax bill would be if every church had to pay taxes based on the value of their land and buildings (like the rest of us do).