One of the nation’s most antiquated state laws just got a much-needed renovation. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry (R) signed H.B. 693 on June 20, finally modernizing the state’s campaign finance laws for the digital age and improving Louisianians’ privacy in the process. The reform measure, spearheaded by Governor Landry and his attorney Stephen Gelé and sponsored by Representative Mark Wright (R), passed both chambers of the Legislature with strong bipartisan support, with votes of 77-16 in the House and 31-6 in the Senate.

Just last week, we wrote about a successful bipartisan effort to reform and modernize campaign finance laws in Nevada. That law, A.B. 497, ensures Nevadans can freely support the nonprofit causes they believe in without fear of having their donation – and their personal details, such as their home address – publicly exposed. That’s just one of many important changes the Nevada law makes to protect civic engagement at a time when political violence is rising and online tools have made it easier than ever for bad actors to weaponize personal information.

Not to be outdone, H.B. 693 now makes Louisiana the fourth state to complete a comprehensive review of its campaign finance laws following Nevada, Kansas, and West Virginia. Similar to those efforts, a key aim of H.B. 693 is to bring Louisiana law in line with recent Supreme Court rulings. In the 2021 case, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Justices clarified how lower courts should evaluate laws that expose citizens’ personal information and support for nonprofit organizations. In particular, the Court struck down a California policy requiring nonprofits to turn over their confidential donor lists to the state Attorney General’s office.

“We are left to conclude that the Attorney General’s disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors’ associational rights,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority.

Many state campaign finance laws are likely unconstitutional under the AFPF v. Bonta precedent because they fail to distinguish between political committees, which exist to influence elections, and nonprofit organizations, which exist primarily for other social, religious, and educational purposes but may occasionally speak out on political issues. These laws put Americans’ privacy at risk just for donating to a cherished community organization. In the wake of AFPF v. Bonta, these requirements are likely unconstitutional. In the face of rising political violence, they are also an urgent problem for policymakers to address.

Louisiana was one such state where old laws threatened to treat nonprofit supporters like political megadonors, exposing their donations and their home addresses. H.B. 693 solves this problem by revising the “political committee” definition in Louisiana’s Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (CFDA) to include a narrowly-defined “primary purpose” standard and clarifying the distinction between reporting requirements for “political committees” and requirements for other kinds of organizations, like nonprofits. The law promises that when Louisianians donate to a nonprofit, they will not face backlash at their front doors.

It was no surprise that Louisiana lawmakers acted to protect the privacy rights of nonprofits and their donors. They did so in 2020 as well via S.B. 439, becoming one of 21 states to enshrine proactive protections for nonprofit donor privacy into law. That law, while curtailing state agency collection and disclosure of nonprofit donor information, exempted campaign finance statutes from its provisions. Now, H.B. 693 brings the process full circle.

As PUFP explained in a letter to Governor Landry:

The existing CFDA appropriately defines a PAC based on an organization’s “primary purpose.” However, Louisiana law fails to further define exactly what “primary purpose” means or how it is determined. Because this is such a critical concept with profound regulatory consequences for organizations that engage in core First Amendment activity, the term must be clearly defined rather than left to guesswork, whether by a regulatory agency or by the regulated community forced into compliance with the law.

H.B. 693 eliminates this ambiguity by appropriately defining the term “primary purpose” based on whether making political “contributions” or “expenditures” constitutes the preponderance of an organization’s spending and smartly excludes consideration of expenditures made from an organization’s general revenues.

The letter continues:

Under existing Louisiana law, organizations that are not PACs (i.e., that lack the “primary purpose” of a PAC) are still subject to strict reporting requirements whenever they make political “expenditures” or accept political “contributions” exceeding $500 during a CFDA reporting period. The CFDA specifies vaguely that “[s]uch reports shall be filed at the same time, shall contain the same information, and shall be certified correct in the same manner as reports required of political committees…”

In an improvement from H.B. 693’s predecessor, H.B. 596, the enrolled bill resolves the incoherent mandate in current law and properly clarifies that non-PACs engaging in occasional political expenditures are only required to report information on those expenditures and any “designated contributions” given expressly for such spending. The revised independent expenditure reporting requirements for non-PAC entities in § 1501.1(B) of H.B. 693 capture the spending at issue without unnecessarily – and potentially unconstitutionally – invading donor privacy rights for nonprofit speakers that only infrequently engage in political advocacy.

Thanks to H.B. 693, Louisianians now have clarity and stronger protections for their privacy when supporting nonprofit causes. Congratulations to Governor Landry, Representative Wright, members of the Louisiana State Legislature, and the Pelican State’s nonprofit community for achieving this impactful victory for privacy, free speech, and good government.