https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRXKtLX4L2A
Oakland News Now Blog –
Is California Law AB 1130 On Political Infuencers Legal? ChatGPT Raises Good Questions
– video made by the YouTube channel with the logo in the video’s upper left hand corner where the Channel Name appears. OaklandNewsNowBlog.com is the original blog post for this type of video-blog content.
Is California Law AB 1130 On Political Infuencers Legal? ChatGPT Raises Good Questions
OK, here’s a new California law that I question the legality of: AB 1130: Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign disclosures. https://ift.tt/dn14Rge and why is that legal and does not impact my right to freedom of association, but AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v.
BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA https://ift.tt/QHZqjhd says that “In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (594 U.S. ___, decided July 1, 2021), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that California’s requirement for charitable organizations to disclose the names and addresses of their major donors (via IRS Form 990 Schedule B) is facially invalid under the First Amendment”?
ChatGPT said:
The key constitutional question: Why is AB 1130 different from Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta?
Your comparison raises a legitimate First Amendment issue. The Supreme Court’s decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta does not simply say that California may never require political or financial disclosures. It establishes a constitutional test that can apply to disclosure requirements, including those involving political activity.
The distinction California would likely emphasize is that AB 1130 does not require you to disclose all the people or organizations with whom you associate. It requires you to identify a financial relationship behind a particular political message.
An observwould not conclude that AB 1130 is unconstitutional solely because Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta invalidated California’s charitable donor-disclosure requirement.
I would also not conclude that AB 1130 is constitutional simply because California calls it a campaign-transparency measure.
The proper analysis is:
The First Amendment applies. The law compels disclosure connected to political expression, so the constitutional issues are real.
The government has a substantial defense. Voter information about paid political messaging is a legitimate governmental interest, and the requirement is narrower in subject matter than the blanket donor-disclosure rule struck down in Bonta.
Narrow tailoring remains essential. A court must evaluate the precise scope of the requirement, its effects on political participation, the statutory exceptions, and the enforcement provisions.
The penalties deserve separate scrutiny. AB 1130’s change to the consequences of noncompliance could matter to a challenge based on deterrence or chilling of speech.
I have not identified a court ruling specifically holding AB 1130 unconstitutional or upholding it against a First Amendment challenge. My assessment is therefore an analysis of the enacted law under existing Supreme Court doctrine, not a claim that a court has already resolved the issue.
🎙️ New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! 😍 https://ift.tt/1OZmA7N
via IFTTT
Note from Zennie62Media: This video-blog post was produced by our experimental mobile reporting network. Learn more about our “Third Wave of Media” system here.
