In a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1798, James Madison famously observed: “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger real or pretended from abroad.”

Over 225 years later, Madison’s quip remains an important warning. Threats from other nations are among the most common excuses given by politicians to justify restricting the rights and freedoms of American citizens. Increasingly, nonprofits and donors are finding their rights on the chopping block through ill-considered proposals from both parties.

A recent report from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft illustrates how easily concerns about foreign influence in elections can be stretched to fit other purposes. The report analyzes donations by foreign governments and foreign government-owned entities (as well as grants from Pentagon contractors) to American think tanks and argues for new, privacy-invading disclosure laws. Here, the focus is not on elections at all, but simply “organizations that seek to influence public policy.”

The numbers Quincy reports are not impressive. The report found roughly $110 million in donations to the 50 biggest think tanks from foreign governments over a 5-year period. That works out to $22 million per year divided amongst 50 think tanks from all foreign governments. That is roughly the cost of 90 seconds of advertising during the upcoming Super Bowl. Think about that: the net sum of all foreign government donations to major American think tanks each year could buy you a grand total of three 30-second Super Bowl ads. If these donations truly offered a reliable path to undue political influence, we should see a lot more of them.

Nevertheless, Quincy presents these findings as cause for concern and describes think tanks that do not publicly expose their donors as “dark money think tanks.” The report urges Congress to force these groups to disclose all “corporate, U.S. government, and foreign government donors who give above $10,000.” That approach sounds more like the DISCLOSE Act’s assault on free speech and citizen privacy than a measured response to foreign meddling in elections.

Quincy is not alone in raising concerns about foreign donors to nonprofits unrelated to elections. Little-noticed legislation introduced in the last Congress called the “Think Tank and Nonprofit Foreign Influence Disclosure Act” (H.R. 7169) would have required 501(c)(3) nonprofits to report donations from foreign governments and foreign political parties in excess of $50,000. Elsewhere, politicians and activists have challenged the role of nonprofits in funding media outlets and registering voters.

State and federal lawmakers have recently proposed, and in some cases passed, new legislation motivated by a range of concerns involving foreign donations to nonprofits. Some bills go to extreme lengths to strip American nonprofits and their members of free speech rights, if they receive even a single foreign donation over a period of many years. Others are more balanced in their approach to preventing foreign interference in elections.

As debates about the proper course of action play out, People United for Privacy Foundation has urged policymakers not to allow opponents of free speech and donor privacy to hijack the discussion. The freedom to privately support a nonprofit cause is a cherished constitutional right protected by the First Amendment. Restricting that right would fail to prevent foreign meddling in politics and would instead empower corrupt domestic officials – as well as hostile foreign nations – to target American citizens for their beliefs and donations. Violations of donor privacy lead to weaponized government and a chill on free speech.

One key to keeping the discussion on track is to maintain focus on elections. Policymakers should avoid the temptation to try to stamp out all foreign donations to any organization that might somehow influence public opinion or government action. That path leads to unworkably vague and overbroad legislation rife with constitutional vulnerabilities, harm for American nonprofits and donors, and long odds to passage. Instead, lawmakers should pursue realistic reforms aimed at addressing the most serious and discrete problems.

The 2025 legislative sessions are sure to see more bills aimed at preventing foreign interference in politics. Many of these bills will likely implicate, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the privacy and First Amendment rights of American nonprofits and their American donors. In order for anti-foreign meddling efforts to succeed, without backfiring on the rights of American citizens, lawmakers must stay focused on real problems with targeted solutions and reject invitations to pursue invasive donor disclosure requirements for private organizations. We can secure our elections without sacrificing our rights to support causes safely and effectively.