In a legislative session filled with disturbing disclosure threats in both red states and blue states, there’s been some encouraging (and overlooked) news, too.

State lawmakers are increasingly rethinking the antiquated monetary thresholds at which political donors’ personal information is reported to and made public by government agencies. In most states, contributing as little as $51 to a candidate’s campaign, political party, or political committee (PAC) results in a donor’s name and home address appearing in public and searchable government databases. Shockingly, some states have no disclosure threshold at all and publish complete donor lists online regardless of how little an individual has contributed. Making matters worse, many states also list donors’ employers and occupations within public databases. Amid increasing concerns about politically motivated threats and violence, elected officials are right to reconsider and reform overbroad donor exposure requirements.

In Louisiana, Governor Jeff Landry (R) recently signed into law legislation raising all donor disclosure thresholds within the state’s campaign finance statute to $200. Previously, The Pelican State publicly identified the name and address of every individual giving over $50, and, in some instances, donors giving any amount were listed in state databases. The bill, S.B. 495, passed both chambers of the Legislature unanimously, and it’s not the only action lawmakers took this year to protect speech and privacy rights.

The effort to rein in campaign finance statutes harming Louisianians’ First Amendment rights began last year with a much-needed makeover of outdated laws that improperly put nonprofits engaged in issue advocacy at risk of facing the same donor disclosure requirements as PACs. In addition to S.B. 495, legislators built upon 2025’s reforms with the passage of H.B. 459, which, through its revisions to the state’s “electioneering communication” definition, further ensures that nonprofits won’t trigger campaign finance reporting requirements when engaging in issue advocacy.

Louisiana lawmakers may be leading the charge for reform, but they certainly aren’t alone. In New Hampshire, Governor Kelly Ayotte (R) signed S.B. 405 into law in late June. This reform legislation increases the threshold at which political giving triggers public disclosure from $50 to $200. Additionally, the new law raises the threshold for public reporting of a contributor’s employer and occupation information from $200 to $1,000. As Representative Clayton Wood (R) explained, “[t]his bill strikes the proper balance between transparency and participation… It reduces administrative work for campaigns, removes a potential chilling effect on small donors who may be uncomfortable disclosing personal information for modest contributions, and brings reporting thresholds into alignment with the state’s current campaign finance structure.”

Not to be outdone, the Arizona Senate passed a bill (S.B. 1006) to protect the privacy of political donors giving less than $200. The current disclosure threshold is $100. Relatedly, the Senate also passed privacy-conscious legislation (S.B. 1743) to redact contributors’ street names and numbers from publicly available campaign finance reports. While neither bill made it through the House this session, the momentum behind these proposals shows that elected officials in Arizona are taking seriously the need to safeguard civic engagement through commonsense privacy reforms.

The interest in reform is bipartisan, too. A pending bill in New Jersey sponsored by Sen. Joseph Cryan (D), S. 1431, includes language increasing a donor disclosure threshold for independent expenditure committees from $500 to $10,000. Through amendments to the definition of “independent expenditure,” Sen. Cryan’s proposal is also intended to eliminate donor disclosure requirements trigged by advocacy related to pending legislation or regulations.

Though distinct from the state’s campaign finance disclosure requirements, Connecticut raised the reporting threshold for paid communications that “refer to pending administrative or legislative action” and “solicitations… of other persons to communicate with a public official or state employee for the purpose of influencing any legislative or administrative act.” Signed into law in May, H.B. 5532 increases the threshold at which such “expenditures” trigger lobbying reporting requirements from $50 to $100. While this law doesn’t require donor disclosure, such “grassroots lobbying” regulations have a significant, negative impact on nonprofit civic engagement by exposing organizations to government investigations and costly compliance burdens for communications to the public about bills and other pending government actions. Any reform, no matter how small, that minimizes privacy burdens is worth celebrating.

Raising unjustifiably low disclosure thresholds, many of which were first enacted decades ago in the pre-internet era, is a simple reform that ensures Americans are not forced to sacrifice their privacy as a consequence of making modest contributions to political campaigns and causes. Campaign finance laws are meant to address concerns surrounding corruption. Doxing citizens for making small contributions to candidates and groups that represent their values discourages political participation and violates personal privacy while serving no legitimate corruption interest.

Looking ahead to 2027, legislators interested in protecting civic engagement amid Americans’ justifiable anxiety concerning political violence and retaliation should follow Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Connecticut’s lead by taking a hard look at disclosure thresholds that unreasonably treat small-dollar donors as corruption risks.