If this transparency standard was enforced consistently across all religious and social groups, I would agree. But by the looks of it, that's not the case here.

That's exactly the case. Some are just louder than others.

No, we wouldn't. We already have catholic charities, black charities, african and south american and so on that are all free to solicit donations without a prior restraint requiring them to disclose their ethnicity/religion in every advertisement. Under the nuremberg codes of california, only jews have to tell people they are jewish before asking for a donation.

https://clip.cafe/schindlers-list-1993/by-law-i-have-tell-sir-im-a-jew/

Under the law, race and religion are supposed to be protected classes, entitled to more protections against discrimination than other groups and classes. The judge's ruling requires disclosure of one narrow facet of where the money goes. There are endless qualifiers and groups you could define, like disclosing the money is going to summer camps. Or tutoring. Or passing through a second 501c. They could require arbitrary disclosures how tall the workers at the charity are, or the number of vowels in their surnames, or their hair color. None of these are protected classes (well maybe hair in CA), nor is there a requirement to disclose these details. And yet the one group thats supposed to get extra protections, instead has that inverted and they are subject to extra scrutiny and disclosure. You must disclose that money is going to jews. If they weren't jews it wouldn't be an issue. But these goldsteins forgot to wear their yellow badges in public"

>The Defendant is hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from broadcasting the ‘Kars4Kids’ jingle or any
variation thereof in the State of California unless said advertisement contains an express, audible
disclosure of its religious affiliation

The USA 2026

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 16 2026 11:27am

I'm afraid these organizations were supported at best on a local level. It's unlikely that the Vatican used Reich gold, or that African governments would take the last money collected for treating AIDS and Ebola to support the relevant organizations. And if not, then what are we left with? Some foundation that wants to hide its affiliation with a specific country and religion. By the way, why.

From what I understand, the issue is that the advertising may have created a broad impression that it was a general-purpose children’s charity, while in practice the organization’s funding primarily supports a narrower religious and educational network. The court’s concern was that this could be misleading to donors unless key information was disclosed in the advertising itself. This fits a broader pattern in charity regulation, where regulators intervene when fundraising messages materially misrepresent or omit important information about how donations are used. A comparable example in terms of enforcement logic is scrutiny of organizations like Wounded Warrior Project, where questions were raised about the gap between public fundraising messaging and actual spending breakdowns. TLDR: charity regulators frequently act when advertising creates a materially misleading impression about beneficiaries or use of funds.

Catholic Charities have, like many other large nonprofit networks in the U.S., occasionally been subject to regulatory scrutiny over fundraising disclosures, reporting, or program spending. These cases are part of general charity regulation rather than something specific to Catholic (or Jewish) organizations.

This post was edited by ferdia on May 16 2026 11:58am

And yet its uncontested in the fact that it is a children's charity, it is raising funds for youths. Tutoring, summer camps, trips overseas for children. They split hairs in the decision over the age range of the children which was incredibly nitpicky- arguing that using children aged ~11 in ads when its children aged ~17 receiving funds. That's baloney and they know it.

But the meat of the argument and what they explicitly ruled on is that it was raising money for jewish children, and they didn't affirmatively disclose in every ad that it benefits the jews
They created a prior restraint that jewish charities can't advertise without disclosing that they are jewish, and that doesn't match any existing law or regulation.

Again, there is an infinite number of criterion you could establish, that wasn't being disclosed. If they could establish that no money ever went to quadriplegic or blind children, must a charity disclose in its ads that its ableist? If they only donate money towards children in northern and east coast states, should aggrieved southerners be allowed to sue on grounds that its those damn yankees taking our money? And yet, we already have examples of other protected classes like a black children's charity in california that advertises as raising money for children- no mention that its going exclusively to black kids.
So any arbitrary undisclosed classes and disproportionate impacts could be invented. And we know other established protected classes don't need to disclose their criterion. And yet, the jews got singled out with a judge unironically saying they must expressly, audibly disclose their jewishness

Helps balance the aggregate dickery

"State agencies are prohibited from entering into or renewing contracts with companies unless the contractor pledges in writing that they are not participating in a boycott of Israel"

Otherwise, they’ll also have to wear an armband- but a red one with a white circle and something else, which is also unpleasant.


"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

This post was edited by Norlander on May 19 2026 05:49am

Good.

I seem to remember a group that got publicly funded cash to run daycare and medical rides that paid themselves insane salaries just to send some off to Somalia. that was a problem. so is this.

for years K4K has been obscuring its true purpose, funneling cash to only Jewish kids. The highest earning demographic minority in america wants more handouts. no thanks.

even if its not strictly correct in context i frankly dont care. it balances out so much other horse shit they get away with.