I find this leak to be incredibly ironic in light of the recent California required political disclosure law that got struck down. One of the key arguments fro

I find this leak to be incredibly ironic in light of the recent California required political disclosure law that got struck down. One of the key arguments from the charities that challenged that law was that California has a history of leaking sensitive information and that they would likely leak this list of donors, and California's primary argument against this was "well, we've changed!" It's just funny to see it happen again. Here's from the transcript between Alito and the Solicitor General from California from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-251 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-251 at around 1:19. Samuel A. Alito, Jr. All right. The brief filed by the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund says that we should regard your system as a system of de facto public disclosure because there have been such massive confidentiality breaches in California. And from the perspective of a donor, that may make sense. A donor may say: This is a state that has been grossly negligent in the past. No sanctions against anybody who's leaked this information. I have to assume that this may happen again. Why isn't that a reasonable way to look at this? Aimee A. Feinberg I don't think even the district court regarded it that way, Justice Alito. At 62a of the Law Center petition appendix, the district court said that the Attorney General's Office efforts to rectify past lapses and to prevent them in the future were commendable. Samuel A. Alito, Jr. It said your past record was shocking, did it not? Aimee A. Feinberg In the foundation decision, it did. Following the court's analysis of the evidence regarding the changes to the State's protocols, it called those efforts commendable. Its concern at the Law Center -- its concern at that point was that the State could not guarantee confidentiality.