No. 132 Misc. Dkt. 1989 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | Mar 23, 1990
OPINION
The Commonwealth Attorney General has filed a complaint against the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, Inc. (Association),
According to the complaint, Rainbow secured money from the public by soliciting charitable contributions while representing itself as a police officer organization when in fact, the caller was a compensated professional solicitor not otherwise associated with any law enforcement agency. Complaint, para. 15(a).
Rainbow initially argues that the Charitable Reform Act does not apply to it because Rainbow is not engaged in solicitation of contributions for or on behalf of charitable organizations. We reject this argument because our decision in Commonwealth v. Frantz Advertising, Inc., 23 Pa. Commw. 526" court="Pa. Commw. Ct." date_filed="1976-03-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/commonwealth-v-frantz-advertising-inc-6362966?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6362966">23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 526, 353 A.2d 492 (1975), compels us to do so.
In Frantz, we held that the statute applies to all organizations which represent themselves as charitable or obtain money for such a purpose. In his complaint, the Attorney General has averred that Rainbow held itself out to be a charitable organization and solicited contributions for the Association and other charitable entities. Complaint, para. 15(a). We must accept these facts as true for the purpose of ruling on a defendant’s preliminary objections. Pennsylvania Academy of Chiropractic Physicians v. Department of State, Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs, 129 Pa. Commw. 12" court="Pa. Commw. Ct." date_filed="1989-10-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/pennsylvania-academy-of-chiropractic-physicians-v-commonwealth-6373561?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6373561">129 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 12, 564 A.2d 551 (1989).
Rainbow also argues that it is not subject to the Consumer Protection Law since it sold only advertising space and was not engaged in “trade or commerce” as that term is defined therein.
We do not agree. According to the pleadings, Rainbow’s operations encompassed twenty-six counties statewide, raising between one-half and one million dollars annually, with the bulk of the monies paying for administrative expenses. Rainbow solicited monies from the public via direct requests for contributions, sale of advertising spaces, license plates,
Finally, Rainbow contends that both the Charitable Reform Act and Consumer Protection Law, as applied to it, effect a prior restraint on the right to free speech, because the injunctive relief sought by the Attorney General in his complaint would enjoin Rainbow from conducting all future solicitations of any kind. As we stated in Watson & Hughey, First Amendment guarantees
However, if at some point in these proceedings, this Court determines that Rainbow has engaged in fraudulent or deceptive solicitation practices, then the appropriate injunctive relief can be fashioned without impinging on constitutional protection against prior restraint. Bates v. State
Accordingly, we overrule Rainbow’s preliminary objections.
ORDER
Defendants’ preliminary objections to Counts I, II, III IV and V of the complaint are overruled.
. The Commonwealth filed its complaint in equity on May 10, 1986. On May 25, 1986, this Court approved the provisions of a Consent Decree which settled the issues outstanding between the Commonwealth and Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, Inc., thus leaving for resolution only the action against Rainbow and its principals.
. Act of December 17, 1968, P.L. 1224, as amended, 7Í P.S. §§ 201-1— 201-9.2.
. Act of April 30, 1986, P.L. 107, No. 36 as amended, 10 P.S. §§ 161.1 —161.19.
. U.S. Const. amend I.