Cert. denied in No on E v. Chiu. That’s a big deal after AFPF v. Bonta. From a Public Citizen press release:

The “Sunlight on Dark Money” law was approved as a ballot measure in 2019 by 77% of San Francisco voters. The law strengthened rules for campaign ads by requiring local campaign ads to identify by name and donation amount their top three contributors of $5,000 or more. For the first time, the required disclosure included the biggest backers of “shell committees” if they are top campaign-ad funders. These “shell committees,” often given innocuous-sounding names like ‘San Franciscans for San Francisco,’ have become shields commonly used by billionaires, corporations, and other mega-donors to hide their funding of campaign ads.   

Opponents of the “Sunlight on Dark Money” law, such as the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, argued these disclosure requirements are an imposition on free speech in violation of the First Amendment because, they say, the disclosures could take up too much space on campaign ads and could discourage big donors who prefer to give anonymously.   

After a federal district court in California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their arguments, opponents petitioned the Supreme Court for review. Today, the Supreme Court denied the petition in the case, called No on E v. Chiu, No. 23-926.