With all but a handful of state legislatures adjourned for the remainder of 2025, People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF) is reflecting on notable policy trends impacting nonprofit advocacy and donor privacy across the country. While state lawmakers kept nonprofits and privacy advocates busy defending against an array of threats to speech and privacy rights in 2025, which we covered in a previous post, there were also many significant victories for donor privacy in this year’s session. A bipartisan contingent of elected officials in states across the country took concrete and impactful steps to defend and strengthen freedom of association, private giving, and nonprofit advocacy rights this year. Though this overview is not exhaustive, what follows are four of the most encouraging legislative trends PUFPF witnessed and worked to effectuate this year.

I. Nevada and North Carolina Adopt the PPPA’s Privacy Protections

Continuing the years-long trend of bipartisan support for legislation proactively defending the speech and privacy rights of nonprofits and their supporters, this session saw Nevada and North Carolina join the 20 other states that have enacted PUFPF’s signature model policy, the Personal Privacy Protection Act (PPPA), since 2018. The PPPA prohibits state agencies from collecting or releasing personal information about a nonprofit organization’s members, volunteers, or donors, unless required by legal proceedings or enforcement of existing law. The legislation codifies U.S. Supreme Court precedent protecting privacy in association under the First Amendment and prevents government officials from weaponizing their powers against their ideological opponents. In all, 22 states have passed the PPPA, effectively protecting the privacy rights of 108 million Americans.

Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo (R) signed A.B. 197 into law on May 29 after the bill received near unanimous support in the Legislature. Co-sponsored by Democratic Assemblywoman Shea Backus and Republican Assemblyman Greg Hafen, the lower chamber’s Minority Floor Leader, A.B. 197 passed 41-1 in the Assembly and 21-0 in the Senate.

The privacy protection measure was supported by a wide range of nonprofits active in Nevada, including groups who frequently disagree on other policy issues. The size and diversity of the coalition supporting A.B. 197 attracted attention in the Nevada Legislature. Organizations that urged lawmakers to pass the bill included the ACLU of Nevada, All Voting is Local, Americans for Prosperity – Nevada, Battle Born Progress, Eagle Forum, Libre Initiative Nevada, Nevada Families for Freedom, Nevada Policy, Nevada Republican Party, Nevada Right to Life, New Day Nevada, One APIA Nevada, Planned Parenthood Votes Nevada, Silver State Equality, Silver State Voices, Southwest Gas, and United Way.

In North Carolina, bipartisan support for the PPPA in the General Assembly enabled lawmakers to override Governor Josh Stein’s (D) misguided veto of S.B. 416. In late June, the bill passed 24-15 in the Senate and 63-46 in the House after advancing unanimously from committees in both chambers. The bill’s lead sponsors were Republican Senators Warren Daniel, Ralph Hise, and Timothy Moffitt. Though S.B. 416 was sponsored exclusively by Republicans, some Democrats joined Republicans to pass the bill initially and then again to override the Governor’s veto. Notably, Attorney General Jeff Jackson (D) also supported the bill.

As in Nevada and other states where the PPPA has become law, an ideologically diverse group of organizations supported the bill in North Carolina. S.B. 416 enjoyed backing from the ACLU of North Carolina, Americans for Prosperity – North Carolina, John Locke Foundation, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault, North Carolina Family Policy Council, and Planned Parenthood. Despite the wide range of support, Governor Stein vetoed the bill in early July. On July 29, both chambers of the General Assembly voted to override the governor’s baseless veto by votes of 30-19 in the Senate and 74-46 in the House.

II. Campaign Finance Modernization Reforms Gain Significant Momentum, Pass in Three States

Following the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, many state laws that threaten to expose nonprofit donor information to the public are likely unconstitutional. Fortunately, some states have begun addressing such First Amendment concerns wrought by their outdated campaign finance reporting requirements. This year, Kansas, Nevada, and Louisiana amended their campaign finance statutes to address constitutional and practical deficiencies that harm citizens’ speech and privacy rights. In 2023, West Virginia became the first state to reform its campaign finance and lobbying laws to meet the standards of AFPF v. Bonta.

Kansas Governor Laura Kelly (D) signed a bipartisan reform bill, H.B. 2206, on April 7, rectifying the state’s vague and overbroad “political committee” definition. A local nonprofit successfully challenged state enforcement officials’ application of the definition after facing demands to publicly expose its donors.

Legislation enacted in Nevada similarly protects nonprofits from being treated as political committees by making key privacy-conscious changes to the Silver State’s campaign finance law. The bill, A.B. 497, was introduced by Speaker Steve Yeager (D), passed the Assembly unanimously, and was signed into law by Governor Joe Lombardo (R) on June 5.

In Louisiana, a reform measure spearheaded by Governor Jeff Landry (R) also reins in political committee reporting requirements to prohibit issue advocacy nonprofits from being required to report their donors as a consequence of making occasional, incidental political expenditures. H.B. 693, sponsored by Representative Mark Wright (R), passed both chambers of the Legislature with strong bipartisan support and was signed by Governor Landry on June 20.

Idaho lawmakers also began the process of considering a robust cleanup of their state campaign finance laws this year, and Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (R) convened a task force that recommended many First Amendment-friendly changes to state law.

III. Political Violence Concerns Spawn Early Privacy-Focused Responses

Nonprofits safeguard the privacy of their supporters for a variety of reasons, and individual donors may have very different and deeply personal justifications for wanting to keep their addresses, affiliations, and donation histories private. Recent tragedies involving politically motivated violence have brought to the forefront a primary objective of associational privacy protections: safety. The sad reality is that the failure to protect donor privacy is not only a failure to protect citizens from harassment or biased exercises of power, it’s a failure to protect lives.

Following the abhorrent attack on Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman, State Senator John Hoffman, and their spouses, many states – including Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin – took immediate action to remove lawmakers’ home addresses from publicly available sources. In Pennsylvania, lawmakers’ plan to introduce legislation protecting elected officials’ personal information.

Legislation enacted in Georgia in May, S.B. 199, requires that candidates’ home addresses be redacted from publicly released financial disclosures. Lawmakers in Oregon enacted S.B. 224 this session, which protects the addresses of those affiliated with political committees from public disclosure. Similar legislation to protect lawmakers is pending in New Jersey via A. 5875/S. 4683.

While some states have taken significant initial steps to shield elected officials’ and candidates’ home addresses, few have sought to protect the private information of campaign donors. Most states list the home addresses and employers of small-dollar campaign contributors and donors to organizations that trigger disclosure requirements on publicly accessible and searchable government websites. As a result, it is alarmingly easy for violent extremists to compile a “hit list” with data unnecessarily provided by the state. Removing lawmakers’ and candidates home addresses from websites and public records is an important step toward preventing political violence. At the same time, required redaction of donors’ street addresses should be the law in every state in the nation.

Late last year, the Federal Election Commission, which enforces federal campaign disclosure requirements, unanimously urged Congress to pass legislation amending the Federal Election Campaign Act’s disclosure requirements to protect the street names and street numbers of individual contributors from public disclosure in campaign finance reports. The FEC also published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (REG 2024‑06) last December, titled Modification and Redaction of Contributor Information, which PUFPF has endorsed. The proposal would create a process allowing contributors to apply to have their street names and numbers withheld from public disclosure in cases where there is a reasonable probability of threats or reprisals.

IV. Interest in State Political Debanking/Doxing Bans on the Rise

Other legislative action this year demonstrates that lawmakers are taking the threat of political targeting and violence seriously.

Legislation aimed at addressing “debanking” – the practice of major banks closing or refusing to open accounts for individuals or organizations on the basis of their political, religious, or social views – was enacted in Idaho via S. 1027. Similar bills were introduced but ultimately failed in Alabama (H.B. 418/S.B. 228) and Arizona (S.B. 1094), and a New Hampshire (H.B. 359) proposal will carryover to the 2026 session. According to one source, debanking legislation was also introduced in Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina in 2025.

In Georgia, legislation that will carry over to next session (S.B. 27) would impose penalties for “doxing,” defined in the bill as posting personal information “with reckless disregard as to whether” publicizing such information will cause “actual fear of stalking, serious bodily injury, or death” or “a significant economic injury or mental anguish.”