Probe this leak: An independent investigation should determine how donors to a Nikki Haley-linked nonprofit got illegally released

Nikki Haley is running for president. And though the former South Carolina governor and UN ambassador may have an uphill battle winning votes here in New York, the Empire State has already played a consequential role in her campaign. It was from the office of state Attorney General Tish James that the names of big-money donors to a Haley-affiliated nonprofit, Stand for America, were released, either by error or on purpose, last summer. The leak is serious and should trigger an independent review.

In July 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws compelling nonprofits to submit to charity regulators the unredacted copies of what’s called Schedule B of IRS Form 990, the confidential list of donors that only the IRS had previously had. Even though the Schedule Bs were still secret by law, the high court ruled, 6-3, that the state requirements violated contributors’ First Amendment rights. Four weeks after the ruling, James’ charities bureau suspended collection of those documents.

However, last August, the confidential Schedule B from Haley’s nonprofit was published by Politico — bearing a stamp on its last page that it was received by the AG’s charities bureau on May 10, 2021. Congrats to Politico on the scoop, but if a government official broke the law by exposing information that’s confidential, that must be punished.

For months, the AG and her office have said precious little about how the names got out. Then, in an endorsement interview with Newsday last fall, James “told the editorial board that an internal investigation determined that a switching of software systems caused the security break. While James said the confidential records of many nonprofits were exposed, she could not explain why those of Haley’s organization seemed to be the only ones disclosed.”

Really? When James’ top aide, Ibrahim Khan, was accused of sexual harassment, the AG ordered an outside firm to review the claims. An independent external review is warranted to get to the bottom of this blatant violation of law and donor confidentiality.