Art Meets Artificial Intelligence at this San Francisco Nonprofit

The Misalignment Museum, founded by Audrey Kim in San Francisco, recently garnered international attention with a feature in The New York Times. The museum uses art to explore the ethical implications and potential risks of artificial intelligence (AI), sparking public dialogue on AI misalignment and its possible impact on society.

“It’s definitely a big topic that’s affecting us all, and we should have everyone who is affected by it be part of the conversation,” said Kim to the Times.

“Misalignment” refers to situations where an AI system’s goals or actions diverge from human intentions or values. Misalignment can happen when AI systems interpret instructions in unintended ways, or optimize for objectives that overlook broader human consequences. 

Audrey Kim, an artist and former tech professional, initially launched the museum to bridge the gap between rapid AI advancements and public understanding of their risks. But after realizing there was no clear consensus on what those risks were, she began focusing on education. 

Through art, Misalignment Museum introduces visitors to complex AI concepts, illustrating the challenges of aligning machine behavior with human values.

Kim’s approach combines tech insights with artistic expression, creating a space for AI ethics that is rare in both the tech and art worlds. Her innovative focus is one reason The New York Times took note, celebrating the museum’s mission and growing influence.

At Tuple Legal, we’re thrilled to support the Misalignment Museum’s journey and its commitment to sparking thoughtful discussion on AI. To learn more, visit the museum’s website or plan a visit to experience this thought-provoking space firsthand.

What it Means for California Nonprofits

On July 1st, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta¹ that California’s charity donor disclosure requirement is unconstitutional. The ruling will impact charities’ filing requirements with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts—and may later affect their Form 990 tax filings with the IRS.

Key Take-Aways

• The Supreme Court ruled that the California Attorney General may no longer require charities to disclose the names and addresses of their donors.
• Charities may now omit Schedule B of Form 990 when renewing their registration with the Registry of Charitable Trusts.
• The ruling does not change any state nonprofit tax filing requirements.
• This ruling does not change any Form 990 filing requirements with the IRS—but it paves the way for charities to challenge IRS collection of donor names and addresses; under today’s ruling, the IRS practice could be deemed unconstitutional.

Background

California law requires charities to register with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts.² The Attorney General requires charities to renew their registration and file copies of their IRS Form 990 tax returns.³ Schedule B to Form 990 requires organizations to disclose the names and addresses of donors who have contributed more than $5,000 in a tax year.⁴

Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Thomas More Law Center are two conservative charities who registered and regularly renewed their registration with the California Attorney General.⁵ Over time, those organizations experienced threats of violence, harassing phone calls, and received obscene communications.⁶ When those organizations filed their renewal forms with the California Attorney General, they never disclosed Schedule B out of concern for their donors’ privacy.⁷ In 2010, the California Attorney General threatened to suspend their registrations and fine their directors and officers for failure to disclose Schedule B.⁸

The two organizations sued the California Attorney General, alleging violation of their First Amendment associational rights.⁹

During litigation, the California Attorney General began a practice of collecting, but not publicly disclosing, donor names and addresses.¹⁰ However, the California Attorney General inadvertently disclosed nearly 2,000 Schedule Bs on its website and also insecurely stored all Schedule B filings online.¹¹

After unfavorable rulings by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the organizations appealed to the Supreme Court, who decided to hear the Case. It released its decision on July 1, 2021.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The First Amendment prevents the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Supreme Court has long held that associating with others to advance a cause is protected under the First Amendment.¹² The Court has also held that when governments require disclosure of group affiliations, it “may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as [other] forms of governmental action” because of fears of reprisals against group members.¹³

A 1958 case, NAACP v. Alabama, teaches us why associational rights are crucial.¹⁴ In that case, the NAACP set up an office in Alabama to support racial integration. NAACP members were threatened with economic reprisals and violence, and the Alabama Attorney General sought the group’s membership list, trying to force the group to leave the state.¹⁵

When a government entity compels disclosure of a group’s membership, it must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve a “sufficiently important” government interest.¹⁶

The California Attorney General argued their office needed to collect donors’ identities to prevent wrongdoing by charities, such as fraud or misappropriation of charitable funds.¹⁷ The Court, however, disagreed:

[T]here was not “a single, concrete instance in which pre-investigation collection of a Schedule B did anything to advance the Attorney General’s investigative, regulatory or enforcement efforts.” […] In reality… California’s interest is less in investigating fraud and more in ease of administration. This interest, however, cannot justify the disclosure requirement.”¹⁸

The Court went on to hold that collection of Schedule B information was unconstitutional in all instances because the “widespread burden on donors’ associational rights” is not justified by the program being narrowly tailored to investigate wrongdoing or the Attorney General’s interest in “administrative convenience”.¹⁹

What this Case Means for California Charities

California charities will no longer be required to file IRS Form 990 Schedule B with the California Attorney General when filing their annual Form RRF-1. In other words, their donor list may remain private.

However, this ruling does not affect any other state filing requirements. Charities must still complete all their required periodic filings with regulatory entities such as the IRS, Franchise Tax Board, California Attorney General, and the California Secretary of State.

Does this Case Spell the End of Schedule B Altogether?

Although Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta applies only to the California Attorney General’s practices, it could be applied in the future to the IRS practice of collecting charities’ donors lists on Schedule B. But that has not happened yet.

The IRS has already stopped collecting Schedule B donor information from most types of nonprofit organizations—but not charities.²⁰ The IRS cannot stop collecting donor information from charities because the federal law currently requires them to collect “the names and addresses of all substantial contributors” to charities.²¹

The Court in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta left the question open:

[R]evenue collection efforts and conferral of tax-exempt status [by the IRS] may raise issues not presented by California’s disclosure requirement…²²

A charitable organization could use Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta to challenge the IRS practice of collecting donor information.

However, the IRS likely has stronger arguments for collection of donor information than the California Attorney General did. For example, the IRS could argue it needs donor information to verify that a charity meets the “public support test” to maintain its tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3).²³

A legal challenge to the federal practice of collecting donor information seems almost certain, and it will be interesting to watch.

For more information on the Supreme Court ruling on California’s nonprofit donor disclosure requirement and how it impacts your nonprofit organization, contact Tuple Legal.

Tuple Legal helps you achieve positive change for your cause and your community. Whether you’re looking to start a new California nonprofit, find counsel to help file your nonprofit’s IRS tax filings, keep your activism program compliant, or make governing changes, Tuple can help.

Notes

California Women’s List is a political organization dedicated to electing women who will make California more just and equitable for all.

Tuple Legal is proud to count them as a client.

During the 2020 Democratic Primary, California Women’s List was particularly taken aback when Bernie Sanders endorsed a candidate with a “long history of ugly comments about women”, as the Daily Beast reported.

The pro-woman PAC put Bernie on blast, and he was forced to retract the endorsement:

When Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed Cenk Uygur, the co-founder of left-wing video site The Young Turks and the Platonic ideal of a Bernie Bro, in the packed race to replace former Rep. Katie Hill in Congress, he presumably didn’t expect that the endorsement would be criticized, disavowed, and finally retracted within the course of a single day.

 

[T]he endorsement almost immediately began causing trouble for Sanders, who is courting the same California progressive organizers and organizations that have condemned Uygur’s candidacy.

 

“California Women’s List is disappointed in Senator Sanders’ endorsement of Cenk Uygur, a candidate who has repeatedly used misogynistic, racist, and homophobic language,” Emily Zahn, board president of California Women’s List, which fundraises for female Democratic candidates across the state, told The Daily Beast. “This endorsement appears to go against Senator Sanders’ platform and role as a leader in the progressive movement.”

 

“If Bernie Sanders is a real progressive—he will disavow Cenk Uygur immediately,” the National Organization for Women’s Hollywood chapter told The Daily Beast in a statement, calling Uygur’s past comments about women “both disturbing and disqualifying.”

 

“If Bernie Sanders expects to get the support of women in his campaign for the White House in 2020, he needs to start prioritizing them in his race by taking back his endorsement of known misogynist Cenk Uygur.”

California Women’s List also promotes its pro-woman agenda by selling awesome merch in their online store.

You can also start your political organization, and Tuple Legal can help. Send a note today for more information.

NBC News recently interviewed a client of Tuple Legal. Scott Gehrman founded an environmental nonprofit organization to make Yosemite and other national parks accessible to all. His organization, Lasting Adventures acts as a guide service.

Being in and out of national parks all the time, Scott had thoughts about proposals to add commercial services in national parks:

Scott Gehrman, founder and executive director of Lasting Adventures, Inc., a guide service for hikes, backpacking trips and other outdoor excursions, said some campgrounds in Yosemite could be modernized, including updated restrooms.

 

But he worries about how much commercialization a place like Yosemite, with its breathtaking vistas and towering waterfalls, can handle.

 

“I’ve always kind of said, I have a concern if you drive into Yosemite and it looks like Las Vegas — you know, we don’t want signs up everywhere,” he said.

 

Yosemite already offers food services, but the demand remains high.

 

“Yosemite used to have a food truck over by one of its most famous trails, and it just was kind of discreetly blended in,” Gehrman said. “So, I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea because if you could do it discreetly in a campsite and make it convenient for people and lessen the lines in some of the other areas, that might be a win-win.”

You can also start your environmental nonprofit, and Tuple Legal can help. Send a note today for more information.

The renewed attention to sexual harassment in the State Capitol⁹ includes scrutiny of settlements made by the California Legislature for harassment.

Reports on those settlements have been wildly inconsistent, to the point where media outlets widely disagree on even the total sum of payments.^{24 25 26}

Tuple Legal obtained and reviewed settlement records, court filings, historical news reports, and other documents to compile a database of the Legislature’s sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and gender discrimination settlements from the past 25 years.

This memo has two purposes:

1. It details all known settlements from the past 25 years. It is meant to serve as a resource for victims of sexual harassment in the Capitol to make informed decisions on how to proceed. (If you are reading for that purpose, I would advise you to consult a reputable employment law attorney before taking any other steps–especially before filing a report with your Rules Committee. Attorney consultations are often free.)
2. It presents new findings about the scope and handling of the Legislature’s sexual harassment settlements.

This memo does not account for the thousands of sexual harassment incidents in the State Capitol that have gone unreported. Nor does it account for complaints of harassment that did not result in a settlement. It only accounts for those incidents that resulted in a formal settlement.

Key Findings

Settlement Amounts

The Legislature has paid out at least $1.9 million for sexual harassment complaints in the past 25 years. In 2017 dollars, the amount is $2.8 million.²⁷

In many cases it is not possible to verify that employees’ settlements involved claims of sexual harassment; they may have or may not have. In those uncertain cases, the Legislature paid out $306,000 over the past 25 years. In 2017 dollars, the amount is $360,000.

“No-reemployment” Clauses May Be Particularly Burdensome to Capitol Victims

Many of the settlement agreements Tuple Legal obtained contain a “no-reemployment” clause, which prevents victims from seeking employment with the Senate or Assembly in the future. Attorneys include those clauses in employee settlement agreements to keep disgruntled employees from obtaining settlements, subsequently reapplying for hire, and making a second claim against the employer for misconduct in the later employment application. (Though, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has called validity of those clauses into question.²⁸)

Use of no-reemployment clauses may be appropriate in some employee separation agreements, but routine use of them for sexual harassment victims in the Capitol may be particularly burdensome to the victims. Employment positions in the Senate and Assembly represent a large portion of state-level political and policy jobs. Being banned from one of the chambers creates a significant disadvantage for political and policy staffers who endure sexual harassment.

Confidentiality Clauses Are Not Worth the Paper on Which They Are Printed

Many of the Legislature’s settlement agreements contain confidentiality clauses that purportedly bind legislative houses and aggrieved employees from disclosing the terms of a settlement. These clauses provide very little actual confidentiality.

The Legislative Open Records Act does not protect settlement agreements from public disclosure.²⁹ Any member of the public may request and receive a copy of them. The only redactions in disclosed files are for signatures–not employee names. That is how reporters most often obtain and write stories about settlements. Settlements can generate media coverage of employees even in cases where reporters only know that an employee received a settlement–and no information as to why.³⁰ As noted in the next section, settlements rarely name alleged perpetrators, thereby leaving only victims’ names in media reports.³¹

Including Only Limited Details in Settlement Agreements Shields Harassers from Scrutiny, Making the Legislature Complicit in Sexual Harassment Behavior

While the Legislature must disclose settlement agreements, it is not required to disclose details of sexual harassment investigations.³² Knowing that settlement agreements will be public–but not files pertaining to sexual harassment investigations–the Legislature routinely includes as few details as possible in settlement agreements. The agreements typically do not list the nature of complaints made by employees, nor the persons against whom complaints are lodged. At their essence, the Legislature’s settlement agreements only say: 1) an employee claims some type of workplace misconduct occurred, 2) the Legislature denies any misconduct occurred, but 3) the two sides will settle the matter for a sum of money.

This practice effectively shields offenders from scrutiny unless details of a given matter are leaked to the media or filed with another governmental agency ³³ In other words, our Legislature is doing what it can to actively hide harassers.

Legislature Payouts and Settlement Terms

Verified Instances of Sex Discrimination Claims

This table includes all known instances of employee settlements that involved a claim for sexual harassment. Included is detailed information on a given settlement, including gag clauses⁴⁵, no-reemployment clauses, information on whether an employee was moved to another office in the Capitol, and attorney fees.

Unverified Instances of Sex Discrimination Claims

This table lists details of employee settlement agreements that may or may not have included elements of sexual harassment. The records available are not complete enough to conclude one way or the other.

Changes

Dec. 6, 2017: Edited claim against Rusty Areias (D) and John Barry Wyatt for clarification that harassment charges were leveled against Wyatt.

Notes:

Amateur sleuths hunt for Trump bombshelll

POLITICO recently profiled a client of Tuple Legal. Geoff Anderson founded a nonprofit organization to shine a light on the records of elected officials–beginning with Donald Trump. POLITICO details Geoff’s resistance:

Nearly 3,000 miles from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Washington offices, another investigation into President Donald Trump is underway. This one unfolds in the public libraries and coffee shops of San Francisco, where a self-employed 40-year-old named Geoff Andersen has worked since November … in pursuit of hidden truths about Trump’s rise to power.

 

[…]

 

Convinced that major media reporters are too overwhelmed and distracted to dig deep, Andersen looks in unusual places. His recent request for access to a long-forgotten microfiche cabinet containing old Securities and Exchange Commission records related to pre-internet-era Trump casino deals left the librarians scratching their heads.

 

“They had to find the key,” Andersen chuckled.

After the story broke, Geoff gave Tuple a kind shout-out:

Ryan was a godsend when we were trying to figure out how to set up a nonprofit for our supporters. I can’t praise him enough for his support

— RAGEPATH (@ragepath) August 20, 2017

You can also start your resistance to Trump, and Tuple Legal can help. Send a note today for more information.

In 2015 Ryan Hughes wrote an article for The Young Lawyer about young attorneys counseling friends’ side businesses. Here it is in full:

Niche Practices: The Entrepreneur’s Counsel

Engaging Entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurs always need lawyers, and in recent years, the do-­it-yourself (DIY) market has exploded. Etsy store proprietors, craft food makers, home brewers, independent fashion designers, hyper­local food growers, and vintage decor resellers—to name a few—are everywhere. Odds are that you have a family member or friend who’s involved in a DIY business. Fueled in part by the struggling economy and in part by increased demand for locally produced goods, DIY businesses will likely increase their presence in the American economy.

These niche ventures are exciting for our family and friends, but they also create the need for legal assistance, as with any new business. However, DIY entrepreneurs likely can’t afford expensive counsel to advise and guide them. It’s a gap that’s filled perfectly by newer attorneys on a low bono or pro bono basis. In doing so, you gain valuable experience and help your local economy.

Counseling a DIY entrepreneur allows young attorneys to gain marketable experience advising an actual business venture. DIY businesses share many of the same concerns as larger corporations: limiting liability, tax implications, regulatory compliance, etc. It’s also a great way to gain experience in business entity formation.

Another benefit is that you are acquainted with the venture from its inception, and over time, you may have the opportunity to cultivate that relationship and grow with the company. You might even luck out and get in on the ground floor of the next Clif Bar & Company, which started in a home kitchen as a DIY business.

There are some things to keep in mind before you start counseling your first DIY business. Tailor the extent of your representation to what is appropriate for your level of experience and convey, in writing, that limitation to the client. Don’t overrepresent your ability during the intake discussions; be honest and upfront about your experience. Draft an actual retainer agreement. A formal agreement may seem off­putting to friends and family, but a written retainer is important for your protection and establishing expectations with the business owner. Make sure also to not run afoul of your jurisdiction’s legal liability insurance requirements. Finally, keep representing DIY ventures in perspective. It’s important to identify what you hope to get out of it because such ventures likely don’t have the start­up capital to pay market rate for a lawyer’s time.

Whether done on a low bono or pro bono basis, representing a DIY business is very fulfilling, and I can’t recommend it enough for the DIY entrepreneur in your life.