Summary

Wiley Blount Rutledge Rescue Army v. City of Los Angeles…

The exact definitive distinction between solicitors and promoters, who may be either institutions or individuals, is not clear from the definitions given in the ordinance, [19] or indeed from the opinions filed in the state court. [20] But, so far as we can gather, the promoter differs from the solicitor, generally at any rate, as being one who engages in solicitation as a business or by exercising a managerial or supervisory capacity over other persons acting as paid solicitors under his direction or pursuant to a program in his charge.
Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge Rescue Army v. City of Los Angeles…

The earliest exemplifications, too well known for repeating the history here, arose in the Court's refusal to render advisory opinions and in applications of the related jurisdictional policy drawn from the case and controversy limitation. U.S.Const. Art. III. The same policy has been reflected continuously not only in decisions but also in rules of court and in statutes made appliable to jurisdictional matters including the necessity for reasonable clarity and definiteness, as well as for timeliness, in raising and presenting constitutional questions.
Source: Wikisource

Wiley Blount Rutledge Rescue Army v. City of Los Angeles…

Section 44.19 also regulates the relations between promoters and paid solicitors associated with them. A promoter is forbidden by § 44.19 (9) (a) to cause or permit any person for compensation 'to solicit or receive on his behalf or at his instigation, under his direction or control or in his employment, any contribution unless such person shall be registered as a solicitor by the Board.' And the next subsection requires the registered solicitor to prove his good moral character and reputation for honesty, to file a $500 bond, and to pay a $1.00 registration fee.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature