Nonprofit political organizations must now appoint many of their donors in good standing after the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene

Defense groups that are investing money in independent campaigns to impact the mid-term races this fall are to unveil most of their political donors this week after the Supreme Court on Tuesday denied 39, intervene in a case of long duration.

The High Court did not seek a stay of a federal judge in Washington that rejected a decades-old federal election commission rule allowing non-profit groups to keep their donors secret.

With less than 50 days of legislative elections this fall, this decision has far-reaching consequences that could limit the ability of key political actors to raise funds and force the disclosure of some of the richest donors in the country.

In an interview, FEC President Caroline Hunter said the names of some contributors who donate money to non-profit groups for political campaigns beginning Wednesday will have to be made public.

Hunter and other conservatives warned that the decision could have a deterrent effect as the midterms warm up.

"It is unfortunate that citizens and groups who wish to defend their candidate will now face a lot of uncertainty less than two months before the elections," said Hunter, a Republican candidate.

Supporters of stricter regulation of the currency in politics celebrated this decision.

"It's a great day for transparency and democracy," Noah Bookbinder, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said in a statement, adding, "We are about to experience a lot more about who finances our elections. "

The decision last month by US District Judge Beryl Howell will be appealed. But in the immediate future, the decision forces the big leftist groups and the right to scramble and reevaluate the way they plan to fund their fall campaigns.

Nonprofit advocacy groups – who do not have to publicly disclose their donors, as do political committees – will now have to start communicating the names of contributors who donate more than $ 200 per election for their independent political campaigns .

"In going forward, these groups will have to disclose to the public any donor who has given money to influence a federal election, whether he wants to sponsor a particular race or a specific communication," said Matthew Sanderson, a representative of the republican campaign. lawyer. "Some groups will not need to adjust their approach to fundraise, but it will be a big change for others."

The change could affect heavyweight groups across the political spectrum, including Americans backed by Koch for prosperity right and the league of conservation voters on the left.

The case began nearly six years ago when CREW filed a complaint with the FEC, arguing that it should compel Crossroads GPS, a leading non-profit conservative organization, to unveil donor names. . D-Ohio.

The FEC was stuck on the opportunity to open an investigation on Carrefour and then dismissed the complaint in 2015. The following year, CREW sued the agency.

In his decision last month, Howell sided CREW. In his 113-page opinion, Howell wrote that the FEC's regulations "blatantly concealed the purpose of Congress to fully disclose the sources of money that fuel federal political campaigns and, therefore, remove the benefits of disclosure" .

She postponed the 45-day disclosure requirement to give the agency the time to adopt a new rule.

Crossroads GPS tried unsuccessfully to suspend the decision, pending his appeal.

On Tuesday, Carrefour GPS spokesman Chris Pack said in a statement: "Although we are disappointed that the Supreme Court has not taken advantage of this opportunity to ensure the regulatory clarity of non-political organizations the current doldrums and comply with the law, as we have always done. "

The FEC must now create a new rule for non-profit organizations, but it is unlikely that it will be in place before the midterms. The new regulations must be reviewed by Congress for 30 legislative days before they come into force – which means that the FEC would have had to finish drafting a new rule before the court renders its opinion, for the court to come into force on September 17th. deadline.

Ellen Weintraub, Democratic Vice President of the FEC, said that there was "great interest" among the commissioners to provide advice before the midterm elections, but said that it was too much early to clarify what this would imply.

Tuesday's development sparked a frenzy among non-profit groups as they were trying to figure out what the decision would mean for the fundraising and spending activities for the 2018 elections.

David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, who opposes campaign funding restrictions, predicted that many non-profit groups will turn to super PACs as a solution.

"They can just take the money that they have allocated for it and then decide to give contributions to the super PACs that will be active in the races and on the issue they agree on", said Keating.

Earlier this month, following Howell's decision, the Koch Network launched a new super PAC intended to serve as Friends for Americans for Prosperity.

The Conservatives said the decision to reject the FEC rule raises concerns about the first amendment regarding donor privacy.

"If speakers can not trust the regulations as they are written, it is chilling, and it is unfair to change the rules of political speech in the middle of the campaign and many organizations have already ran [independent expenditure ads] during the current campaign, "according to the Institute for Freedom of Expression.

But Jessica Levinson, an Electoral Law Professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court's order was a "huge victory for the public."

The rule now dismissed "was a huge gaping hole in our system and allowed a lot of undisclosed money to be poured into our electoral system – disclosure is really all that remains," said Levinson.

This story first appeared in the Washington Post.