Abstract
In 2021, the United States Supreme Court in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta considered the anonymous speech rights of charitable donors against the California Attorney General’s interest in preventing wrongdoing by charitable organizations. The Court applied exacting scrutiny, a standard traditionally applied to campaign finance disclosure laws, determining that California’s requirement was facially invalid as a violation of associational rights. Bonta did not concern campaign finance, making this application of exacting scrutiny novel. This Article considers the open questions raised by Bonta regarding how exacting scrutiny should be applied and what it means for the future of campaign finance disclosure regimes.
Recommended Citation
Sara L. Neier,
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta: Protecting Free Speech and its Implications for Campaign Finance Disclosures,
2
Fordham L. Voting Rts. & Democracy F.
148
(2023).
Available at:
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/vrdf/vol2/iss1/5
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Election Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons