The right to participate in the political process is at the heart of America’s constitutional protections for freedom of speech, assembly, and petition. In the face of rising political violence, however, states are increasingly finding it necessary to explore enhanced privacy protections to safeguard civic engagement.

The Arizona Senate joined the trend this spring when it passed bipartisan legislation (S.B. 1743) to redact the home addresses of individual donors from public campaign finance records. The bill, which was introduced by Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh (R) and passed in a 22-7 vote, is a version of the Protect Donors at Home Act (PDHA) developed by People United for Privacy Foundation.

Technological advances have been a major contributor in making donor records ripe for abuse. As the world moved from phonebooks, TripTiks, and paper records to smartphones, GPS, and digital databases, many of our laws failed to keep up.

This is especially true in campaigns, where donating small amounts to a candidate can result in your exact home address and other sensitive personal information being published in government records anyone can access in perpetuity. In Arizona, donors whose total contributions exceed $100 have their precise street name and number publicly exposed.

When accessing these records required visiting a government office and poring over pages of reports, abuse was relatively rare – although not unheard of. But in today’s digital environment, campaign donation records represent one of the largest and most easily exploited troves of personal information on the web.

The problem extends nationwide. Only six states – California, Minnesota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming – do not provide donors’ street addresses in their publicly available campaign finance data. But there is progress: Three of those states (Minnesota, Utah, and West Virginia) passed PDHA-style reforms just this year.

The Federal Election Commission, the bipartisan agency tasked with enforcing the federal campaign finance laws, has unanimously recommended that Congress adopt similar reforms at the federal level. While donations to candidates for Congress and the presidency are only disclosed above $200, Americans who give online through conduits like ActBlue and WinRed are exposed at any level. That requirement is the subject of a federal lawsuit, in which PUFPF recently filed an amicus brief in support of the challenge.

The PDHA allows citizens to contribute to campaigns with confidence. It offers the same privacy as a voting booth to achieve the same principle: No one should have to fear retaliation at their home because of their support for a political candidate.

Both chambers of the Arizona Legislature are currently recessed until June 1 as Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) and legislative leaders negotiate the state budget. S.B. 1743 is unlikely to move forward at this stage of the session, but the Senate’s bipartisan vote to advance the bill – as well as other legislation to raise the threshold at which donations are publicly exposed from $100 to $200 (S.B. 1006 and S.C.R. 1002) – is telling.

Arizona has become one of the most hostile states in the nation for donor privacy thanks to a 2022 ballot measure that imposed widespread disclosure mandates on nonprofits and advertisers. But the rise of political violence is a reminder of why donor privacy matters in the first place.

S.B. 1743 represents hope for a brighter future for privacy and free speech in the Grand Canyon State. As lawsuits over the 2022 measure continue to wind their way through the courts, pro-privacy reforms like the Protect Donors at Home Act can help protect every Arizonan’s right to support the candidates and causes they believe in.