馃攳
Do Americans Have the Right to Donate Privately? - YouTube
Channel: unknown
[4]
- Imagine it's 1956
[5]
and you lead a chapter of the NAACP
[8]
in the heart of Jim Crow country.
[10]
Two years ago, the Supreme
Court struck a lethal blow
[13]
to segregation in its landmark
[15]
Brown v. Board of Education decision,
[17]
ruling that public schools
could no longer be segregated
[20]
on the basis of race.
[22]
You're invigorated by the ruling,
[24]
but you're also fully aware of
how much work there is to do
[27]
until the fundamental American promise,
[29]
that all men and women are created equal,
[31]
truly applies to every American.
[34]
But just this morning,
[35]
you received a letter
from the state government.
[37]
They're ordering you to
hand over the list of donors
[39]
to your NAACP chapter,
[41]
claiming the authority to
comb through your records,
[44]
including your members'
and financial supporters'
[46]
names and addresses.
[48]
This is, of course, an
intimidation tactic,
[51]
and a scary one at that,
[52]
for your supporters' physical safety
[54]
and for your group's viability.
[56]
You know that if your
supporters' names are revealed,
[59]
they'll be intimidated,
harassed, or worse,
[62]
until they're silent,
until they stop giving.
[65]
So, you stand your ground.
[68]
Two years later, the Supreme Court
[70]
will hand down a decision in your favor.
[72]
That decision, NAACP v. Alabama,
[75]
recognized the God-given
right of every American
[78]
to free association, as
enshrined in the First Amendment.
[81]
It also established a very high bar
[84]
that states must overcome in
order to force a nonprofit
[87]
to release its list of
members or supporters.
[90]
Keeping donations private
[91]
is a way to protect religious freedom,
[93]
advance the common good, and
allow the diversity of ideas.
[97]
The freedom to give
privately is one reason
[99]
why Americans have been among
[100]
the world's most charitable givers.
[102]
But in March of 2012, California
set out to change all that,
[106]
ordering all nonprofits that
wanna fundraise in the state
[109]
to provide all their major
supporters' information
[112]
every year, even if the
state had no suspicion
[115]
that those groups had done anything wrong.
[118]
That directive applies across the board,
[120]
from donors who support
pro-life advocacy groups
[122]
to those who support
groups on the other side
[124]
of the abortion issue,
[126]
and to every other cause under the sun.
[128]
The threat to donor information
isn't just theoretical.
[132]
As a federal judge found at
the conclusion of a trial,
[135]
the attorney general's office
[136]
leaks private donors'
information like a sieve;
[139]
and California threatens no punishment
[142]
if employees, contractors,
or even summer interns
[145]
download, email, or print
supporters' names and addresses
[148]
and then disclose them publicly.
[151]
Government should not be in the business
[153]
of tracking and publicizing
your charitable giving
[155]
or anyone else's.
[157]
That puts donors' livelihoods
and lives at risk.
[160]
It also raises the stakes so dramatically
[163]
that only the most ardent supporter
[165]
would dare give to a
cause they believed in.
[167]
Some bullies are all too
eager to make life miserable
[170]
for their ideological opponents.
[172]
That's a tragic reality
Brendan Eich learned firsthand
[175]
when he was forced out of his position
[177]
as CEO of Mozilla Firefox
[180]
because he gave his own money
to support Proposition 8,
[183]
which a majority of California
voters passed in 2008
[186]
to affirm the definition of marriage
[188]
as between one man and one woman.
[191]
What was true in 1956 is still true today,
[195]
especially in a moment defined
by fracture and polarization.
[199]
Without donor privacy, the
freedom of every American
[202]
to support causes they believe
in is an empty guarantee.
[205]
And that brings us to
Thomas More Law Center,
[208]
a nonprofit organization
based in Michigan,
[210]
that defends and promotes
religious freedom
[213]
and family values and the
sanctity of human life.
[217]
As with many high-profile nonprofits,
[219]
some of Thomas More Law
Center's supporters,
[221]
clients, and employees
have faced intimidation,
[224]
death threats, hate mail, and boycotts.
[227]
At one point, there was even
an assassination attempt
[230]
by ideological opponents.
[232]
And that was before
California started to demand
[235]
that all charities that
fundraise in the state
[238]
hand over their donor information.
[240]
So, with the help of
Alliance Defending Freedom,
[243]
Thomas More Law Center
asked the Supreme Court
[245]
to reaffirm what it
ruled way back in 1958,
[249]
that every American is
free to support causes
[252]
they believe in without fear
of harassment or intimidation.
[256]
The Court has agreed to hear the case,
[258]
with oral arguments likely to take place
[260]
in the spring of 2021.
[263]
Thomas More Law Center knows
that the stakes are high.
[266]
Their work is too important to give up.
[268]
They want just one thing:
[270]
to be able to count on the government
[271]
to protect their donors' confidentiality
[274]
according to the Constitution's promises.
[277]
Freedom to support groups and issues
[278]
without fear of harassment
and intimidation
[281]
is freedom worth fighting for.
[286]
Find out what you can
do to stand for freedom.
[289]
Visit www.ADFLegal.org/standforfreedom.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage