Republican lawmakers increasingly express concerns about the role of so-called “dark money” and out-of-state donors in elections, critiques once largely championed by Democrats. Efforts to prohibit out-of-state persons from spending money in state campaigns and ballot measures, however, have failed in court as a violation of the First Amendment and Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In response, some Republicans are now flirting with a Democratic proposal that would dox supporters of any organization that speaks about state politics. This desperate and misguided policy would impose significant harms on in-state nonprofits and donors while failing to stop national organizations from intervening in state elections.

The state of Idaho offers one recent example of this debate in action. Early in this year’s session, Idaho Sen. Doug Okuniewicz (R) sponsored a resolution proposing an amendment to the Idaho Constitution that would toughen requirements for placing an initiative on the ballot. Sen. Okuniewicz said the measure was necessary to reduce the influence of “big money special interests who really have no business exerting their will over the residents of this state.” That resolution did not pass the Senate, but Sen. Okuniewicz returned with S. 1186, legislation that would massively increase disclosure and reporting requirements for nonprofits that participate in campaigns and policy discussions.

This is a common trend. When lawmakers cannot stop groups from exercising influence – because doing so requires suppressing free speech – their next move is often to impose crushing regulatory burdens and threaten to expose the groups’ supporters to harassment. Under S. 1186, organizations that speak to the public about legislation, the actions of elected officials, or issues on the ballot may be forced to publicly expose the names and addresses of their donors.

The threat of public exposure and potential backlash at one’s workplace or home is enough to keep many average Idahoans from donating. But it is hardly even a speedbump for wealthy, out-of-state donors who are already well-known for their political activity. Disclosure is not a threat to George Soros or Hansjörg Wyss. It is a threat to people who fear losing their jobs or being swatted at their homes if their personal information and beliefs are exposed. The recent rise in violent protest behavior and vandalism, including attacks on personal property, signals that some radical activists are willing to cross the line into intimidation. Giving those individuals access to donors’ home addresses is not just reckless, it’s dangerous.

But it gets worse. S. 1186 demands so-called original source disclosure, meaning that nonprofits must reveal not only their donors, but their donors’ donors. That means Idahoans who give to a nonprofit could be publicly listed as a funder of political ads run by any organization that later receives a grant from that nonprofit. In a world where most Americans do not meticulously track the path of every dollar they donate, these add-on disclosure requirements are not “transparency.” They are misinformation that exposes Americans to retaliation for supporting organizations they may not even be aware of, let alone actively endorse.

The concept of original source disclosure has decidedly left-wing origins. It comes from an Arizona ballot measure pushed by a former Democratic official and designed by an activist group that is currently challenging the Trump administration’s election integrity efforts in federal court. Despite this, the Arizona model has been embraced by certain Republican lawmakers as a potential bludgeon against progressive nonprofits that have become major players in ballot measure contests.

These Republicans ignore, or perhaps do not know, that the largest progressive nonprofit networks do not fear disclosure. In fact, they largely support tougher disclosure and reporting laws for groups like themselves. The founder of Arabella Advisors, the umbrella organization that oversees the left’s biggest so-called “dark money” network, is a vocal proponent of forcing politically active nonprofits to expose their donors via the DISCLOSE Act. Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats have proposed giving Trump’s IRS a free hand to regulate the political speech of nonprofit organizations via Rep. Jason Crow’s so-called “End Dark Money Act.”

Why the lack of concern for the left’s donors? While many individual left-of-center groups oppose disclosure out of concern for the safety of their supporters, progressive leaders generally believe the fallout from mass exposure of nonprofit donors would be more harmful to conservative organizations than their own. In the current wave of harassment and violence targeting Tesla owners, Israel supporters, and the office of a state Republican party, are they wrong?

Fortunately, S. 1186 failed to become law thanks to an outcry from a diverse group of organizations in the state, including organizations that often find themselves on opposite sides of other policy debates. At a hearing in the State Senate Affairs Committee, all ten organizations to testify on the legislation came out against the bill. (Those groups were the AFL-CIO, Americans for Prosperity Idaho, Catholic Diocese of Idaho, FGA Action, Idaho Dairy Industry PAC, Idaho Family Policy Center, Idaho Freedom Foundation, Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, People United for Privacy Foundation, and Philanthropy Roundtable.)

So, to recap: A bill aimed at reducing the influence of out-of-state groups was killed by opposition from mostly in-state groups who realized that the bill would harm them more than anyone else. According to the minutes: “They expressed concerns regarding the chilling effect S 1186 would have on free speech and donations. In addition, they argued that this bill would give an advantage in an election to well-funded out-of-state organizations.” During debate about the bill, Senator Jim Guthrie (R), Chair of the committee, also acknowledged “the collateral damage potential is maybe significant, including the free speech piece.”

Efforts to blunt the impact of out-of-state donors and organizations in elections face a thorny thicket of constitutional and practical problems. A better path for the right – or for any political movement – is to build their own strong institutions that can compete and win against the left.