The Daily Signal reported the below today. 8 Democrat Senators wrote letters to non profits who put forth opinions opposing the consensus about climate change, demanding to know where they get their money from.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that non profits do not have to disclose their funding sources.
Will that also be in the first ninety days of a HRC administration, that if we oppose some government effort to spend our money, we will be a target for expressing our opinions? This is a slippery slope.
Senate Liberals, Targeting Climate Change ‘Deniers,’ Demand to Know Donors to 22 Think Tanks
The above title is from the editorial page of the WSJ for May 21-22, 2016. It talks about the EEOC losing a case at SCOTUS 8-0. Even with four progressive leaning judges, CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC. That comes on top of a 9-0 ruling in in 2012, Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.
If you can’t get legislation by leading a divided Congress, just sue people.
CRST was also awarded legal fees, $4.7 million dollars, of our taxpayer money!
You would think that government attorneys would think first about whether a case has merit based on precedence before moving forward, or spend someone else’s money going to court.
Good for SCOTUS.
The above title is from a WSJ article editorial. Ms. Harris is the attorney general of California and has been trying to sue non profits to obtain lists of donors. The case ended up in Federal court and the judge, Real-a LBJ appointee-ruled against the states’ case.
It was shown that on numerous occasions the privacy of donors, as promised by the state, was violated in their Schedule B’s.
The progressives are hot, how dare the court rule against them in what they think is “right.” Well, a judge who applied the law, thank goodness.
May 16, 2016
The WSJ editorial page today, “The IRS’ Donor List” talks more about this, especially focusing on the right to privacy and a bill that has come out of committee prohibiting the IRS from collecting the data.