that supplement what your colleague has stated regarding the status of the regulation or the procedure in acting that regulation no your honor i do not have any additional information it is in the works and  one thing that made the panel may be headed for me is that if this regulation doesn't have the enforcement heath or the mechanisms that the police have of brought up are we really talking about public disclosure here  and i think what we have to keep in mind with public disclosure is that first of all public disclosure is perfectly constitutional we know that from the citizens united case we know that case and we know that from many other cases that start with the premise that public disclosure is constitutional so with that in mind then we have then it's up to the plaintive the party challenging the disclosure requirement it's incumbent on them to show the level of harm that this court in the supreme court has recognized as sufficient to strike down that public disclosure  requirements and to be clear that's not what we have in this case we do have a confidential disclosure requirements but if we were to consider a public disclosure requirement what we know is that the level of harm that must be shown needs to be concrete it needs to be systemic it needs to be pervasive over a long period of time that threatens the very existence of the group and the ideas of the group brings to the marketplace of ideas and harm that the government is unwilling or unable to control and that is not the type of harm that we have in these cases your honor we're here on the thomas more law center case i will turn to the harms cited in that case and there the showing is absolutely does not rise to the level the the demanding level that this court in the supreme court has imposed to show that level parts so we have an instance of one of the law centers clients receiving death threats as a result of staging a prophet mohammed cartoon drawing contest first that's not sufficient because there's no call the nexus between that death threat and any type of disclosure require any type of disclosure to an analogous governing body and we know from the cases from from dover remount from protect marriage versus remand that death threats in and of themselves do not constitute again the systemic pervasive concrete level of harm that you have to show before you reach a  injury so next we move to a statement in the declaration of richard thompson the president of the law center he says that the c e o of  nationwide supermarket chain is it made some comments about employer coverage for contraceptive health care for employees and in that declaration he says the business was negatively affected the economic boycott protests in front of store fronts again not sufficient to show first amendment harm we know that from the protect marriage case let's contrast that to what the supreme court has recognized as enough and that is rank and file members of the on double a c p and the socialist workers party actually losing their jobs because of association associations with the with these groups that's nothing like a nationwide supermarket chain having its business negatively affected next we move to the negative criticisms on internet blogs the hateful e mails of all guarantees in these e mails that the law center sites again no no connection to the disclosure requirement at issue and moreover we know again from the cases this type of speech is not enough to show first amendment harm and i'd like to add that they also state that their e mail system routinely delete all of these e mails with vulgarities what about the chilling of associational rights that people who would have contributed to the client to do so because of fear of reprisal yes your honor so what we know and their affidavits in that case that said people are members would no longer contribute if they knew their identifying information be disclosed supreme court said not enough we also know from the door one case an affidavit that said contributions are going to virtually dry up joel one this court said not enough and i think it's important when we think about contributions and these types of associational chill again look at the group that we're talking about on the socialist workers party that was sixty people in that group and they were on the virtue after years of government surveillance and harassment shots fired in their windows they were on the verge of being extinguished and they couldn't bring their market their their ideas to the marketplace so we have to remember let's look at the alleged harm and let's look at the nature of the group and here the plaintiffs in this case we have americans for prosperity foundation they themselves allege they're backed by billionaires we have the thomas more law center i'm sorry it's backed by billionaires your honor the thomas more l center which they say they represent christian ideals in a christian heritage christianity being the dominant religion in our country so again we have to look what is the harm that they're talking about is there any tethering or causal nexus to the requirement issue and is it the type of injury that is systemic concrete pervasive that threatens their existence that the government is unwilling or unable to control so that's the type of harm that courts that the supreme court in this already let's say that the type of harm demonstrated thus far in this case the rise to the level of the burden or the infringement that you're talking about in those other cases there isn't any state interest and public disclosure though is there when you balance it against the declarations that happens the interests at stake here your honor is the information that schedule b provides to the attorney general in assisting her to prevent and combat fraud misappropriation and self dealing we know  though you're dodging the question which is you started out with disclosure public disclosures for said public disclosure is constitution but it comes down in this case to so what the question in this case is do you get the information for internal enforcement use  recognize the state itself recognizes that it's not to be made public so does that not imply some concern on the part of the state that if it were in fact the i r s regulations law the same does that not imply a recognition that donors to charitable organizations don't expect when they get in their private decision making that they will not be listed in a public record at least when they're reported to the i r s and when they are reported to the state since both the i r s and you're proposing it will not be made public and in fact will take steps to make sure that the public disclosure statutes in california have no exceptions for this because it's been prohibited by the state so whether where does that leave us yes your honor there isn't the information is being kept confidential the that the state has an interest in keeping the information what we have in this case is a confidential disclosure policy there are interests in keeping it confidential what we are saying honor is that if we're if what we're talking about is public disclosure which is what we don't have in this case there it's still the requirement or i understand your argument but it's a little troublesome the judge when pointed out you're not trying to make them public so the steps to keep it confidential by the state are consistent with what the plaintiffs are complaining about which is risk of harm and chilling of and  there's a remedy in the works to put teeth in the nondisclosure that a lot of this firm and drawing might be unnecessary this is not a campaign disclosure case it's not even prop eight where there was a campaign an issues campaign so it's in some sense an error subset of those cases and my concern and one of my concerns is in the in forstmann mechanism you will take the information and turn it off i think on the briefs it will be available to sixty members of the a g s office and we know that there can be leaks in government so you know if we're going to be balancing things that's one aspect of this case is balancing the policy legitimate interest that can act or sing the law so the question in this case comes down to can you do your job without risking the public disclosure it boils down to in this case your concern is the information of donor lists goes to it already goes to their  the state of california replicates the regime then isn't your problem solved unfortunately not your honor for a couple of reasons number one the purpose to which the information is put is different between the s and the attorney general's registry the i r s is looking to see if people are legitimately claiming duction contributions to charitable trusts forced to know that you have to see who's contributing how much to whom that's what schedule will be does the registers interest is to see how the charitable trust uses the money where it comes from and there's been no connection of the dots by the attorney general's office in this case or the other one to show that because they see who donated money they can connect that to how the money is used in fact council earlier was referring to the information certainly the attorney general seem to me would have a question or two gentlemen see of the charitable deduction if the money which is given and passed back to the contributors but we already have two and we do to actors and isn't there the issue of conflict of interest or you have an answer judge reinhart's question if it's just going back to the donor to some  drug company had a strike company this out policy you know whatever they're doing laundry money for all they know well we also separately have to identify any related party transactions which we do and the ages office gets that we also have to disclose where the money goes out from and because the thomas moore law center has a very specific and narrow purpose and that is who eagle advocacy in courts to support free speech and free religion rights which is somewhat different than what we've been talking about before if you saw money going out from thomas moore law center to an individual or to some other trust or to some corporation or whatever that isn't payment to a law for them to advocate in court on behalf of one of thomas more law centers clients that would tell you they don't need it as to us and the other the reason that the suggestion has been made doesn't satisfy our problem are one they have a connect the dots what they do say is that they need the information but in their deposition testimony his counsel referred to the can a dentist i a single case in all the other organizations that provide schedule b where any of that information has ever led to an enforcement action of any sort of way that shows it's a pretty good system well because they've got a system but it is no corruption it's something that's so important  i imagine the voters got separate rules a hero the other reason it doesn't ask adequately deal with our problem exists how does the registry use the information that they get now from other sources and the declaration in our case for mr baumann their witness they say they use it to make phone calls so you should contact people who are listed on schedule will be to identify witnesses and  court imagine a more precise definition of chilling effect than hello i'm i represent the chief law enforcement officer of the state of california and i'm told i'm hearing  any reason to think they're going to call people who contribute to such a fine outstanding christian organization except if they testified under oath that that's what they do that's what they do whatever that's what they do with a potential problem you really think they're going to think there's a problem we're going to say sure particularly i would go to court to the idea that we can't rely on the government to exercise no blush noblesse o but you know i guess cases are really based on what people say that some theory or principle or rule of law that you would like to establish but throughout her briefing says that our evidence is speculative it's real it's realize things that have happened now those were our clients and their clients i understand why they get threats but if their names are in the public they put everything is one step away but it's not that we don't have to look very far either in time or location to see that ordinary people who are not public figures are subject to essentially a death penalty not a christian jihadist organization i was not suggesting it was your effort for there it saying there are your argument that one step away is true in some cases that doesn't mean it's true in other cases when you're on the field and i know you get to ask the questions but forgive me for this one when you're i feel a little less likely to give money to the thomas more law center if you knew that your name your information  leaked out of the federal government which has been famously hacked we got our names are out there you know all of our employees are out there they got hacked so there's nothing sacrosanct these days about being in the files you know the federal or the state governments in the sense of hacking and the like or inadvertently but quite seriously there is a re place where the donor identifications are submitted to a government agency and it has not you haven't claimed and there's no evidence as chilled any of your activities it's one government agency one federal agency that has specific laws with criminal penalties for anybody abusing the information that come in effect or what i opened with than what is wrong with the regulation  that is being proposed why isn't the regime were they started out with the policy of confidentiality you don't think is adequate they reinforce it with the regulation so a form that we can say this is exactly what it will do but i do know this with the i r s it's one risk that everybody across the country takes that somebody might have the i r s system it so happens when we've cited cases where the i r s itself has been held liable for an inadvertent disclosure of schedule b information been held for liable for damages so there's that protection but by that time the cat's out of the bag the risk of saying a state can do the same thing it's one thing to say the attorney general of california has a legitimate need which i guess would apply elsewhere so if you put take fifty more jurisdictions and give them nationwide donor lists now the risk is multiplied because you can't guarantee that s supreme court riley versus national federation for the blind a case the attorney general relies upon a case in which among other things blowing question required the private foundation to disclose its donors to the state of north carolina and the supreme court in that case page seven ninety five equates the disclosure of donor information with speech it says that mandating speech that a speaker would not otherwise make necessarily alters the content of the speech we therefore consider the act of the trip north carolina act as a content based regulation of speech it's the same thing here that law center advocates in court now the attorney general california saying we want you to give us a list we want you to give us information and were changing the speech give on behalf of your donors by doing that and it's simply unconstitutional and by the way i'm not here for a case management conference on the a p s case but are probably it is at the end of june when the sixteen thank will give you one minute if you very much what counsel was referring to with regard to that quote was a quote from riley versus national federation of blind in north carolina and let's be clear clear in that case the supreme court said you can't force a fundraiser to make an app the moment disclosure of an at the moment financial disclosure at the time the speech is being made because that will chill protected speech court goes on to say it perfectly acceptable to require an after the fact financial disclosure to promote the interests of transparency of allowing the public to examine charities so let's be clear that is what we have here is not  yet you're i would just like to point out that the same and counsel made about the schedule being not being useful or or at all helpful all of that is outside the record we have the balance declaration that says schedule b is important an important tool in helping the attorney general identify and prevent fraud and we have that in c c p as well your honor that this court has said that the disclosure requirements search compelling governmental interest in enforcing the law protecting the public trust and preventing fraud and with that i would respectfully request that this court reverse the issuance of the preliminary injunction is that you very much ram and says the uses the information to call our donors and cults or you th