Comments on: California AG wants nonprofits’ donor lists

By: Beuford

Beuford — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:41:59 +0000

You people misunderstand – they know they won’t get far too far with their request, but it will still have a chilling impact on donations to right-of-center causes. Fear of disclosure – not actual disclosure – is all that they need to accomplish their true goal.

This is the same as Obama’s “executive actions” on gun control. These actions are not meant to accomplish anything, but it benefits him left in two ways: 1) It looks like he is doing something, and 2) It makes the right look ridiculous when they over-react. Case in point: Fox News reports that Obama’s proposed actions on guns will:

“…require background checks for [guns] purchased from dealers even if they’re bought online or at gun shows…”

Funny thing is, that’s already required by federal law…. ANY sale from a dealer must go through a background check at the point of delivery to the customer.

It seems to me that the liberal left is playing chess, while everyone else is playing checkers. We really need to improve our game!

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:22:24 +0000

In reply to Fox2!.

Mr. 2:
you may well be right in your analysis (I’m no expert on that stuff) but you are talking as if we are still operating under the rule of law in this country.
We are not.
We have Progressed past that into a kind of executive monarchy.

By: En Passant

En Passant — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 19:59:34 +0000

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but AG Harris deserves credit for making the old college try to resurrect it.

I wonder how many letters from voters along these lines might begin to dampen her enthusiasm:

Dear Attorney General Harris:

To save you the effort of extracting my name and address from the nonprofit organization donor lists you have demanded, I offer you the following information.

During the past year I donated the following to nonprofit organizations of which you politically disapprove:

[include a list of donations and organizations]

In future years, in addition to making similar donations to these nonprofit organizations you disapprove, I will also make equal donations to political organizations opposing your election to any public office you seek.

Sincerely,
John Q. Voter

By: Fox2!

Fox2! — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 18:53:22 +0000

In reply to David C. Whether an individual charity can prove retaliation or not, the First Amendments guarantees of freedom of exercise of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association would over-ride any non-specific ("General Warrant") desire to search and seize the list of contributors. The Fourth Amendment (applied to the States through the Fourteenth) requires specific allegations and descriptions of the properties to be seized.

By: David C

David C — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 07:43:19 +0000

In reply to Fox2!.

I think this case is differentiated because in that case the NAACP could prove retaliation, and each individual charity here might not be able to. (Until it happens, but by then it’s already too late.)

Given how the CEO of Mozilla was forced to resign because he supported the wrong referendum (and that was in California, the very state involved here) I don’t think that retaliation is some overblown concern – it’s reality.

By: Fox2!

Fox2! — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 04:17:22 +0000

Wasn’t this settled in the ’60’s in a case involving the NAACP and the State of Mississippi?

By: mojo

mojo — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 00:19:21 +0000

Kamala is dangerous, always has been.