Late last year, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) proposed a new rule to standardize the process for redaction requests of certain sensitive personal information in publicly available campaign finance disclosure reports. The publishing of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register initiated the public comment period, which recently concluded on February 18. PUFPF supports the proposed rule and encourages the Commission to follow through with additional recommendations that enhance free speech and personal privacy protections suggested by some public commenters.

The proposed rule establishes procedures allowing contributors, or their agents, to request the modification or redaction of certain personal information – specifically, their mailing address, occupation, and employer name – from disclosure reports filed with the Commission. This measure is intended to protect individuals who can demonstrate a reasonable probability of facing threats, harassment, or reprisals due to the public availability of their personal information.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), political committees are required to disclose detailed contributor information for individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year (or election cycle, depending on the recipient). Conduits forwarding earmarked contributions – such as the increasingly popular fundraising platforms ActBlue and WinRed – must report all contributor names and addresses, regardless of amounts. (The conduit reporting law was recently challenged in court on behalf of a small-dollar donor in Texas.)

While there are credible governmental interests necessitating campaign finance disclosures to explicitly political entities like candidate committees, political parties, and PACs, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that personal information about contributors can, in certain cases, subject contributors to potential threats or harassment. Accordingly, the FEC has granted, on an ad hoc basis, specific requests to redact certain information from disclosure reports. The lack of a standardized process for redaction requests, however, means that few Americans are aware these protections exist and even fewer have the means of accessing them. The FEC’s proposed rule aims to rectify these shortcomings and ensure that all Americans – not just those who can afford expert campaign finance attorneys – have a fair opportunity to seek redactions of their sensitive personal information when disclosure poses a threat to their safety.

Writing on behalf of the Institute for Free Speech (IFS), a First Amendment-focused public interest litigation firm, former FEC Chairman Bradley A. Smith and IFS Senior Fellow Eric Wang offer constructive feedback in a public comment on the proposal. While generally praising the proposed rule, IFS encourages the FEC to advance a broader exemption from publicly disclosing donor information to fully encompass the reporting exemption first recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo.

Specifically, IFS suggests four key revisions to maximize the First Amendment promises of Buckley’s recognition of the dangers of disclosure. First, IFS proposes that a donor’s name should also be eligible for redaction from disclosure reports. Second, reporting committees and organizations as a whole, not just individual donors, should also be eligible for a disclosure exemption. Third, the FEC should redact donor information not only from previously filed reports but also from all future reports for the duration of the donor’s granted exemption. Finally, IFS suggests that payees, like staff and vendors, who receive disbursements from exempted committees should also benefit from redaction.

IFS’s comments emphasize that the FEC possesses both the authority and the obligation to implement such rules, to ensure that reporting requirements do not infringe upon First Amendment rights by subjecting contributors to potential threats, harassment, or reprisals. By adopting these recommendations, the FEC would better align its regulations with constitutional protections for associational privacy.

Simultaneous to this proposed rule, Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum, a Democratic appointee, has suggested that the Federal Election Campaign Act should be amended by Congress to broadly prohibit public disclosure of a donor’s street address. Contributors would still submit this information to the FEC, but the information would be withheld from public disclosure. The FEC endorsed the idea in their 2024 legislative recommendations to Congress, designating it a priority and arguing that technological advances since the passage of FECA preclude the need for the Commission to document contributors’ home addresses. The FEC also notes that both California and Texas already redact contributors’ home addresses in comparable disclosure reports. As the agency explains:

“The advent of the internet now allows someone with only an individual’s name to find that person’s mailing address on the Commission’s website with less than a half dozen clicks. Any benefit to the public of knowing the exact address of an individual contributor is outweighed by the safety concerns of having an individual contributor’s address easily accessible on the Commission’s website. A variety of individuals face security threats who might not want their street names and street numbers published in FEC reports and thus made easily accessible online. Law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges are some of the more obvious examples. Less obvious examples include a domestic violence victim escaping an abuser and an election poll worker facing threats due to false allegations, and users of dating apps wishing to avoid having others being able to easily access their home address online.”

Unfortunately, contributor home addresses are explicitly required in disclosure reports by FECA and that requirement can only be reversed by Congress, hence the Commission’s request for legislative action.

Though these developments relate more specifically to campaign finance disclosures, these proposals are a significant victory for nonprofit donor privacy because they dismantle the notion that more disclosure is inherently good, and they recognize the dangers of donor exposure in an era of division and political violence. Both the redaction request rule and the FEC’s legislative recommendation portend an emerging consensus from regulators, the courts, and lawmakers in both parties that the right to associate freely is a core constitutional right that is only worth compromising when there is a narrowly-defined and compelling governmental interest at stake. Furthermore, if this agreement exists for political donors, it applies with even more intensity against legislation in Congress and at the state level that would force issue-focused nonprofit causes to expose their donors.

With growing optimism about the direction of the Federal Election Commission, there is still work to be done before these reforms are codified. Following the public comment period, the FEC will likely host a series of public hearings before voting on the matter. Meanwhile, the FEC is at the mercy of Congress to take up their legislative recommendations. Nonetheless, these developments suggest a notable shift at the agency in favor of stronger protections for free speech and associational privacy rights, and we urge the FEC to move forward with this important rulemaking.