Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

18  AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA 

Opinion of the Court 

human endeavors: from the American Civil Liberties Union 
to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund; from the Council
on American-Islamic Relations to the Zionist Organization
of America; from Feeding America—Eastern Wisconsin to
PBS Reno.  The deterrent effect feared by these organiza-
tions  is  real  and  pervasive,  even  if  their  concerns  are  not 
shared by every single charity operating or raising funds in 
California. 

The dissent argues that—regardless of the defects in Cal-
ifornia’s disclosure regime—a facial challenge cannot suc-
ceed  unless  a  plaintiff shows  that  donors  to  a  substantial
number  of  organizations  will  be  subjected  to  harassment
and reprisals.  See post, at 21, n. 11.  As we have explained,
plaintiffs may be required to bear this evidentiary burden
where the challenged regime is narrowly tailored to an im-
portant government interest.  See supra, at 10–11.  Such a 
demanding  showing  is  not  required,  however,  where—as
here—the disclosure law fails to satisfy these criteria. 

Finally,  California’s  demand  for  Schedule  Bs  cannot  be
saved  by  the  fact  that  donor  information  is  already  dis-
closed to the IRS as a condition of federal tax-exempt sta-
tus.  For one thing, each governmental demand for disclo-
sure brings with it an additional risk of chill.  For another, 
revenue collection efforts and conferral of tax-exempt sta-
tus  may  raise  issues  not  presented  by  California’s  disclo-
sure requirement, which can prevent charities from operat-
ing  in  the  State  altogether.  See  Regan  v.  Taxation  With 
Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540, 545 (1983); see also 
Schaumburg, 444 U. S., at 633 (First Amendment protects
right to solicit charitable contributions). 

We are left to conclude that the Attorney General’s dis-
closure  requirement  imposes  a  widespread  burden  on  do-
nors’ associational rights.  And this burden cannot be justi-
fied on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to
investigating charitable wrongdoing, or that the State’s in-