An Arizona law that undermines privacy and free speech is now spawning copycat efforts across the United States. Bills currently under consideration in Idaho, Maine, and Minnesota would expose Americans to harassment and intimidation for their beliefs and suffocate nonprofit advocacy groups under crushing regulatory burdens. Nonprofits and concerned Americans throughout the country should be on guard for similar proposals in their states.

The law regulates many common advocacy practices that nonprofits of all stripes have engaged in for generations. Under this elaborate bureaucratic scheme, organizations that seek to inform the public about legislation, the actions of elected officials, or issues on the ballot may be forced to expose their supporters’ names and home addresses. Unsurprisingly, the law has caused alarm among nonprofits across the spectrum both for its complexity and its potential to deter donors from giving. Crucially, the Arizona law is being challenged in both federal and state court while it simultaneously spreads to other states.

Earlier this year, People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF) identified the Arizona law as one of the fastest growing threats to privacy and free speech in the nation. Our 2025 survey of state legislation impacting nonprofit donor privacy and advocacy explains: “This ploy bypasses a 2021 Supreme Court ruling protecting donor privacy and may ultimately lead to the next major case on disclosure. In the meantime, the law’s vague language and expansive regulatory powers pose severe risks to any nonprofit that engages on legislative issues or comments on the actions of elected officials.”

The two core elements of the Arizona model are “original source” disclosure and top-three funder disclaimers. Both components are toxic in their own right, but together, they form an extremely potent threat to free speech.

“Original source” disclosure requires nonprofits to publicly report not only their own donors, but also the donors to other organizations that provided them with funding. So, if Group A receives money from Group B, Group A must report the names and addresses of donors to Group A and the donors to Group B in its reports. And so on down the line. This provision alone creates considerable complexity for nonprofits trying to comply with the law and necessitates a seismic privacy violation.

Top-three funder disclaimers require groups to name their biggest donors in their communications, not just on the public forms they file with the government. Taken together, “original source” disclosure and top-funder disclaimers create a risk that donors may be listed on messages from groups they never contributed to. In today’s venomous and polarized political environment, many Americans are not willing to take that chance – and that’s precisely activists’ goal.

Active proposals that are substantially similar to the Arizona law can currently be found in at least three other states. Idaho S. 1186, backed by Sen. Doug Okuniewicz (R), differs from Arizona’s law in some respects but retains its key defining features, as PUFPF has warned. In Maine, Senator Rick Bennett (R) is making his second attempt to pass such a law via L.D. 951, after failing to do so in 2024. And in Minnesota, a DFL-sponsored measure numbered S.F. 905 just had its first hearing on March 27.

Nonprofits, state attorneys general, secretaries of state, and even state election commissions have raised significant constitutional concerns with these proposals. Nevertheless, they have proven attractive to politicians of both parties as a tool for blunting the voices of nonprofits that dare to comment on public policy – and the Americans they give a voice to.

In Maine, for example, L.D. 951 has met stiff opposition across the spectrum, including from Maine Conservation Voters, Maine Education Association, Maine Policy Institute, People United for Privacy Foundation, Philanthropy Roundtable, and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

If there’s a silver lining, it’s that lawmakers who value First Amendment-protected speech and privacy rights are voting in bipartisan fashion to kill such bills. Already this session, three Arizona-style “original source” disclosure bills have been defeated in Colorado, Hawaii, and North Dakota.

• In Colorado, S.B. 25-148, a sweeping Democratic proposal from the Committee’s Chairman, was recently defeated in a bipartisan 3-2 vote shortly after the bill’s first hearing.
• In Hawaii, H.B. 1478 failed a legislative deadline without so much as a committee hearing and is now dead for the year.
• In North Dakota, H.B. 1286, a Republican-backed bill, died on the House floor in a 32-53 vote following opposition from the Secretary of State and a nonprofit, the Brighter Future Alliance. Another related bill, H.B. 1583, also sponsored by a Republican and opposed by the Secretary of State, was stripped of its “original source” and top-funder disclaimer provisions in committee and subsequently passed the House. Notably, this marks the second session where both Arizona-style bills failed in North Dakota, after one of the sponsors brazenly acknowledged in chilling fashion: “I need to know who my enemies are.”

In 2024, similar measures also failed following a ham-fisted and ultimately aborted rulemaking effort in Oklahoma and after a bipartisan collection of lawmakers and strange bedfellows united to outmaneuver a proposed initiative in Oregon.

Often, support for the law is driven by a misguided belief that its provisions will only harm one’s ideological opponents. In reality, the law is a danger to any nonprofit that prizes its ability to protect its members and speak to voters about civic engagement and issues in their state.

From swatting and stalking to harassment and vandalism, Americans face a wide range of threats when their privacy is violated and their beliefs and associations are exposed. Numerous bad actors may seize on this information to torment their perceived enemies, including corrupt government officials, opportunistic politicians, partisan media outlets, rabid activists, and even violent extremists. Thankfully, 20 states have responded to this danger by strengthening privacy protections for the personal information of nonprofit members and supporters, frequently with bipartisan – and sometimes unanimous – support. Unfortunately, the Arizona law is a gigantic leap in the opposite direction.

Americans have a First Amendment right to support organizations that share their values and advocate for their beliefs and interests. This freedom is at the core of free speech and our republican system of government. The Arizona law is an existential threat to the privacy rights that ensure every American can exercise these fundamental liberties without fear of harassment and retaliation. It must be stopped.