Disclosure Digest: An overview of the arguments on donor disclosure and privacy

Welcome to The Disclosure Digest! Keep an eye out for new editions published on Tuesdays through June 2022. 

An overview of the arguments on donor disclosure and privacy

As part of our coverage of donor disclosure and privacy, Ballotpedia created a taxonomy of arguments supporting and opposinsg each side of the policy debate. The arguments generally focus on three main subject areas:

• Disclosure of donor information to governments. 
• Disclosure of information to the public. 
• Whether disclosing donor  information causes political polarization. 

This issue provides an overview of these arguments and examples from our recent coverage of legislation and court activity. 

Disclosing information to governments

Supporters of disclosing donor information to governments say disclosure limits corruption and foreign influence, minimizes the ability of nonprofits to advance private interests, and benefits nonprofits as an endorsement of their mission. Supporters also say inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information is rare and that disclosure does not deter donations or place an undue burden on nonprofits. Commenting on Minnesota HF3190, a bill that would require organizations making independent expenditures to name their three largest contributors, State Rep. Jamie Long (D) said the bill “does not stop any speech, does not curtail any speech,” and it would “help voters make better informed choices” by allowing them to see who is funding an ad. “If the ad you see is from Minnesotans for Sunshine and Puppies, but it’s backed by somebody with a clear political point of view you would want to know that. Could there be an appearance of corruption? Could there be a financial interest involved? Voters want to know,” Long said.

Opponents of disclosing donor information to governments say it violates free speech rights and rights to free association and privacy. They contend that disclosure rules are a solution in search of a problem and consume resources with no clear benefit or purpose, and the government has other means to combat fraud and corruption. Other arguments opposing disclosure say that governments may unintentionally disclose confidential information, which could lead to donor harassment. In a statement opposing Minnesota HF3190, State Rep. Jim Nash (R) said the bill would put people at risk of “being doxxed by the people who oppose the exercise of free speech” and asked lawmakers to consider “the implications of what happens. An ordinary, everyday business owner who wants to donate to a candidate of their choice and they may happen to be the top donor.”

Disclosing information to the public

Supporters of public disclosure say it increases accountability, deters corruption, and limits the ability of major donors to use nonprofits to advance their own interests. Public disclosure advocates say donor visibility benefits nonprofits as an endorsement of their mission, does not inhibit charitable giving, and does not constrain donors’ constitutional rights to free speech and free association. Other advocates of public disclosure say it’s the donors’ responsibility to stand behind their positions, and disclosure provides the public with information about who is attempting to influence public policy. Regarding Florida’s public disclosure bill, H1547, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington press secretary Jenna Grande said the bill would “deny the public legitimate investigations into fraud and corruption. When it comes to understanding how organizations with public influence operate, it’s imperative their financial records are accessible and transparent.” 

Opponents say it violates the rights of free speech, free association, and privacy, and could subject donors to potential harassment and retaliation. Critics of public disclosure say this inhibits charitable giving, diminishes the ability of nonprofits to achieve their goals, and suppresses controversial or politically unpopular ideas or groups that the public should have the right to be aware of. In a complaint filed with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin (R) said “compelled disclosure of [an organization’s] donors could lead to substantial personal and economic repercussions for their supporters” and “if their donors are disclosed, their membership and revenue will decline as donors prioritize their anonymity over supporting Plaintiffs’ work.”

Disclosure and political polarization

Those who say limiting donor disclosure causes political polarization believe undisclosed nonprofit spending allows donors to have an outsized influence on American politics, which has eroded the public’s trust in governments and made communications more opaque. Critics of limiting disclosure also say it creates incentives for controversial ideas to spread in the public square. In a 2021 amicus brief filed in the Americans for Prosperity v. Becerra case, attorneys for a group of Democratic U.S. Senators said: “Citizens United opened the door to unlimited political spending by powerful influencers. Rampant violation of that decision’s transparency predicate has allowed such influencers to wield that power anonymously, through dark money expenditures.”

Conversely, those arguing that limiting donor disclosure does not cause political polarization believe it ensures controversial or politically unpopular ideas and causes can be seen and heard in the public square and that nonprofit donor confidentiality is not the source of political conflict. They say political and social polarization exists even when political campaign donations are fully transparent. In its Supreme Court brief in Americans for Prosperity v. Becerra, Americans for Prosperity said: “Historic strides have often been achieved by private groups espousing ideas that others may (at a particular time and place) violently oppose. Our country would be far less just—and the public square less diverse—if Americans could not support causes anonymously.”

What we’ve been reading

• The National Law Review, “Not-For-Profits, Charities Might Attract More Donors with Improved Website Content, Attention to Privacy,” March 14, 2022
• Bridge Michigan, “Michigan GOP seeks lobbying, finance reforms after Lee Chatfield scandal,” March 17, 2022
• Augusta Free Press, “General Assembly defeats 20 of 24 campaign finance reform bills in 2022 session,” March 17, 2022

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state: We’re currently tracking 132 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure and privacy. Of these bills, 107 are primarily focused on disclosure, and 25 are primarily focused on privacy. To reflect this distinction, the charts in this section and the recent legislative actions below are divided between disclosure legislation and privacy legislation. On the maps below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Donor disclosure legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Donor privacy legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Recent legislative actions

For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here. 

Donor disclosure legislation

• California SB1439:  This bill would change the prohibition on contributions from 3 to 12 months following a decision in a license, permit, or other entitlement for use proceeding and remove the exception for local government agencies.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 16.
• Florida H1359: This bill prohibits the governor, lieutenant governor, or a member of the cabinet from soliciting or accepting a contribution during the 60-day regular legislative session or a special legislative session. It would also require a political committee that is dissolved to dispose of all residual funds and file a report reflecting the disposition of such funds within 90 days of its dissolution. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida H1373: This bill would change the contribution threshold requiring a group to file a statement of organization from $5,000 to $1,000 and change the deadline for filing the statement to 24 hours after the end of the qualifying period for the office sought by the candidate. It would also require electioneering communications organizations to disclose the identity of donors, the amount contributed, and the purpose of each expenditure.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida H6109: This bill would remove provisions that preempt counties, municipalities, and other local governmental entities from enacting or adopting limitations and restrictions involving certain contributions and expenditures or establishing contribution limits different than those defined under state law. 
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida S1352: This bill would prohibit a foreign national from making or offering to make contributions or expenditures in connection with any election held in the state.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida S1836: This bill would change the contribution threshold requiring a group to file a statement of organization from $5,000 to $1,000 and change the deadline for filing the statement to 24 hours after the end of the qualifying period for the office sought by the candidate. It would also require electioneering communications organizations to disclose the identity of donors, the amount contributed, and the purpose of each expenditure.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Kentucky HB740: This bill would require a candidate exempt from filing a campaign finance report to file a 30 day post-election report of receipts and disbursements. It would also require a candidate who is exempt from filing for the primary who advances to the regular election to refile for the filing exemption. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 14.
• Louisiana SB227: This bill would require an entity applying for state grant funding to disclose the names of foreign donors who contribute more than $50,000 to the entity. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 14.
• Maryland HB1343: This bill would require a state contractor to file a disclosure statement with the State Board of Elections if the contractor contributed to a nonprofit organization that funds public communications relating to a project in which the contractor has a financial interest.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 18.
• Michigan HB5910: This bill would set contribution limits for recall committees and require these committees to report contributions over a certain amount. 
  • Bipartisan sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 15.
• Michigan HB5928: This bill would require committees’ campaign finance reports to be published online and available to the public. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 16.
• New York S08588: This bill would require political action committees to report contributions exceeding $10,000 in any calendar year to the state board of elections.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 17.
• Wisconsin AB819: This bill would prohibit referendum committees from accepting contributions from foreign nationals.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 15.
• Wisconsin SB795: This bill would prohibit referendum committees from accepting contributions from foreign nationals.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 15.

Donor privacy legislation

• Alaska HB234: This bill would amend political contribution limits so that they do not apply to an individual, group, or nongroup entity contributing to a group or nongroup entity that only makes independent expenditures.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill passed the lower chamber on March 16.
• Connecticut HB05222: This bill would repeal the requirement for paid solicitors to submit the text of planned solicitations and remove the ability of the Department of Consumer Protection to inspect contribution records upon request. 
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 16.
• Florida H0617: This bill would exempt donors who contribute to the direct-support organization of the Statewide Council on Human Trafficking from public records requirements and provide an exemption from notice requirements for specified meetings. It provides for future legislative review and repeal of the exemption under the Open Government Sunset Review Act.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida S0294: This bill would exempt donors who contribute to the direct-support organization of the Statewide Council on Human Trafficking from public records requirements and provide an exemption from notice requirements for specified meetings. It provides for future legislative review and repeal of the exemption under the Open Government Sunset Review Act.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida H1547: This bill would prohibit a public agency from requiring a 501(c)(3) organization to provide personal information or otherwise compel the release of personal information. This bill would not apply to any report or disclosure required for campaign financing under chapter 106 or lobbying under chapter 11.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida S1848: This bill would prohibit a public agency from requiring a 501(c)(3) organization to provide personal information or otherwise compel the release of personal information. This bill would not apply to any report or disclosure required for campaign financing under chapter 106 or lobbying under chapter 11.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Kansas HB2495: This bill would prohibit a state agency from requesting or releasing the personal information of donors to 501(c) organizations.  
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 16.
• Kansas HB2579: This bill would allow a candidate for state office to request an exemption from the electronic filing requirement for campaign finance reports.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 18.
• Louisiana HB170: This bill would allow candidates, officeholders, and political committees to accept contributions in the form of cryptocurrency. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 14.
• Louisiana HB254: This bill would raise the contribution limit to a candidate for any office to $5,000 and the limit for contributions to a political action committee to $10,000.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 14.

Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations. 

Learn More