Kamala Harris has to be one of the least favorite people in the country. I mean she isn’t the worse but she is definitely in the top 10 for sure. It is not that she has said a ton or even done a lot while in office but it is her previous record when she Attorney General for the state of California that has drawn tremendous criticism.
In fact, while AG, Harris’s office demanded charitable non-profits turn over names and contact information of major donors.
Harris was known to levy fines and suspend their state registrations if the charities didn’t give enough.
If that doesn’t remind you of the old mafia days I don’t know what will.
Now, Harris is getting a taste of her own medicine and I am sure it is a bitter pill to swallow.
In a move that has Harris silent, the Supreme Court struck down Her requirement with a decision split along ideological lines at 6-3.
Kamala Harris silent on SCOTUS ruling on lawsuit that started while she was state AG
SCOTUS ruled 6-3 against the rule started under Harrishttps://t.co/WhWyTDXh7D
— Advanced Assessments – Psychologists (@ExpertWitness_) July 8, 2021
Here is more from Breitbart:
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Thursday sided with the Americans For Prosperity Foundation (AFP) against Acting California Attorney General Matthew Rodriguez in favor of keeping non-profit donor records private, smacking down a measure pushed by Vice President Kamala Harris that conservatives feared could be used to target them.
“The government may regulate in the First Amendment area only with narrow specificity, and compelled disclosure regimes are no exception,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in a 6-3 decision. “When it comes to a person’s beliefs and associations, broad and sweeping state inquiries into these protected areas discourage citizens from exercising rights protected by the Constitution.”
The Court held that California’s disclosure requirement is invalid because it burdens donors’ First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.
While Vice President Kamala Harris was still Attorney General of California, she sent a letter to AFP in 2013 asking the non-profit to send Schedule B forms to disclose its largest donors. A Schedule B is a highly confidential form that lists the names and addresses of a charity’s major donors—including those who live outside of California, according to the Cato Institute.
AFP declined to send the forms, saying doing so would dissuade people from donating and would violate the First Amendment.
Xavier Becerra took over as Attorney General for Harris, but was soon succeeded by Matthew Rodriguez when he became United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. In the case, Rodriguez alleged that the Attorney General’s Office began asking for Schedule B forms in 2010— in the same way the Internal Revenue Service does — to fight charitable fraud and self-dealing.
They further claimed they were not asking for Schedule B forms as a way to target people or publicly out individuals for supporting causes, according to court documents.
AFP, which is a conservative organization, cited an incident in which California released 1,800 Schedule B forms to the public, despite the state’s confidentiality law.
AFP further argued the Attorney General’s Office had only used Schedule B forms five times for investigations. Instead, AFP said the AG should behave the way 47 other states do and subpoena non-profits for records during an investigation, according to court briefings.
A trial-court ruled in favor of AFP before the decision was reversed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, saying in part:
California has not considered alternatives to indiscriminate up-front disclosure. That is true in every case. And the State’s interest in amassing sensitive information for its own convenience is weak. That is true in every case. When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough, because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive. [emphasis added]
In his opinion, Roberts emphasized the First Amendment’s role in protecting freedom of association and how the concept applies to AFP.
“Protected association furthers a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends and is especially important in preserving political and cultural diversity and in shielding dissident expression from suppression by the majority,” Roberts wrote. [emphasis added]
Here is a clip from Rumble: