[Opinionated Blowhard]

This law is not unconstitutional as it applies to activities that clearly fall within interstate commerce. The law requires the filing of information with the federal government which already is collected by many states and which most banks require if a company is setting up a bank account. The law was passed with both Dem and Republican support. It may not be necessary but it is not unconstitutional.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

And ironically, it was an Obama-appointed judge who found it unconstitutional.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The law requires the filing of information with the federal government which already is collected by many states and which most banks require if a company is setting up a bank account.

It will wind up being like the BATF and Form 4473... fail to cross a "T" or dot an "i" and it's off to jail for you.

[9YearLurker]

That doesn’t seem to comport with this part of the story:

“...the plaintiffs in the challenge to the transparency law argued that the Constitution’s commerce clause did not authorize Congress to regulate what they said was inaction rather than economic activity.

The challengers added that the law covers tens of millions of small entities, including homeowners’ associations and family trusts. Complying with the law will collectively cost tens of billions of dollars, they said.”

[Texas Mulerider]

It may not be necessary but it is not unconstitutional.

Its constitutionality notwithstanding, I can confirm that compliance is a pain in the ass.