Despite increased threats to civic participation from political violence and doxing, one of the nation’s most invasive surveillance laws targeting Americans’ associations and speech continues to wreak havoc in the Grand Canyon State. In a 2-1 ruling issued September 30, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Arizona’s “original source” disclosure law for political and issue advocacy. The nonprofit organization Americans for Prosperity challenged the law as a violation of the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association.

“The First Amendment protects an individual’s freedom to voice their opinions about policies affecting Americans’ lives and livelihoods. The Arizona law undermines that protection by forcing individuals — including those with no knowledge of or intent to fund political activity in Arizona — to be publicly named and connected to causes they may never have intended to support,” said Stephen Shadegg, Director of Americans for Prosperity-Arizona.

Passed by the voters via Prop 211 in 2022, the “Voters’ Right to Know Act” represents one of the fastest growing and most dangerous models in the country for regulating advocacy and violating privacy in association. This year alone, 6 states considered versions of the proposal (Alaska (S.B. 64), Hawaii (H.B. 1478), Illinois (H.B. 5154), Maryland (H.B. 584), Minnesota (S.F. 905), and North Carolina (H.B. 788, S.B. 1086), according to PUFPF’s 2026 Post-Session Report. 2025 saw an even greater number of these so-called “original source” disclosure bills introduced in the states.

Arizona’s law, which previously overcame a separate challenge in state court, combines several controversial features to radically expand the reach of the state’s campaign finance disclosure requirements: 1) top-funder disclaimers that force ads to name their sponsor’s top donors; 2) chain disclosure requirements, where donations must be traced back many layers in search of an “original source”; and 3) an expanded definition of what constitutes “campaign media spending.” Together, these requirements transform the historically narrow practice of requiring candidates and PACs to disclose their large contributors into a broad-based surveillance program for groups of citizens exercising basic free speech rights.

Under Arizona’s law, giving to any nonprofit which makes donations to other groups could ultimately result in your name being plastered on political messages you never knew about from organizations you never donated to. Making matters worse, the law is vague and confusing, baffling even longtime experts in campaign finance compliance. It also grants expansive regulatory powers to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

The results have been predictable. Unable to safely navigate the law’s complexity, nonprofits cut back on advocacy or spend more on legal bills – or both. Privacy-conscious donors begin  withholding their support from worthy causes, while the unaware become potential targets for extremists and the maladjusted. Groups that did everything right get hit with baseless complaints all the same, sometimes from political opponents.

At the same time, the law’s lofty promises about eliminating “dark money” from politics have gone unrealized. As the Arizona Republic noted last fall, “The voter-approved law intended to force groups to reveal the ‘true sources’ behind campaign spending, but a review of public records showed that often didn’t happen.” 

The Ninth Circuit upheld the law despite these many problems and the U.S. Supreme Court’s long tradition of protecting nonprofit donor privacy (NAACP v. Alabama (1958), Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) v. Bonta (2021), First Choice v. Davenport (2026)). The majority opinion instead characterized the state’s “informational interest” in publicizing the names and addresses of nonprofit donors as “vital,” while downplaying the law’s regulatory and privacy burdens as “modest.”

“Proposition 211’s original source disclosure requirement is substantially related to the State’s vital interest in ensuring that the electorate has accurate information about the sources of major campaign media spending. Proposition 211 imposes modest burdens on Arizonans’ speech and associational rights, and its disclosure, recordkeeping, and agency enforcement provisions are a reasonable fit to the State’s asserted interest,” wrote Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez for the majority.

Legal challenges to the Arizona law are still ongoing, and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling may be appealed. In the meantime, another election cycle will pass with the law silencing trusted nonprofits and citizen groups that used to serve as a counterbalance to super PACs and self-promoting candidates. At a time when many states, including Arizona, are working to roll back campaign finance disclosure laws to address concerns about donor safety and political harassment in the digital age, the “Voters’ Right to Know Act” is putting nonprofit donors on blast and at risk.

The final word on “original source” disclosure may ultimately have to come from the U.S. Supreme Court, which famously overturned the Ninth Circuit in AFPF v. Bonta. In the meantime, nonprofits and donors around the country would be wise to oppose “original source” disclosure proposals in their states, lest they find themselves in another protracted legal battle to vindicate fundamental First Amendment freedoms.