PDF of the letter available here.

RE:     Support for H.F. 3363, Protecting Minnesotans from Political Violence by Preventing Public Disclosure of Individuals’ Precise Address Information in Campaign Finance Reports

Dear Co-Chair Freiberg, Co-Chair Quam, Co-Vice Chair Altendorf, Co-Vice Chair Lee, and Members of the House Elections Finance and Government Operations Committee:

On behalf of People United for Privacy Foundation,[1] I write in support of H.F. 3363, critical and commonsense reform legislation that addresses rising political violence by protecting from public disclosure the street address of individual contributors listed on campaign finance reports. Crucially, address information necessary to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations enforced by the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board will still be reported privately, and all other currently reported information about contributors to political actors will still be made publicly available.

H.F. 3363 ensures the state’s legitimate transparency and regulatory objectives are met while keeping particularly abuse-prone information confidential. Indeed, each donor’s first name, last name, city, state, zip code, employment information, contribution amount, and the date of each contribution will continue to be reported to the Board and posted on the internet. Especially in the wake of horrific acts of political violence in Minnesota and elsewhere, no state should be publishing online the precise locations of citizens’ homes alongside their political donations. Campaign finance laws are meant to prevent corruption, not facilitate doxing, and ever-advancing information technology has changed the calculus surrounding public disclosure of sensitive location information.

The reforms in H.F. 3363 are grounded in precedent. Due to safety concerns exacerbated by the modern internet, the bipartisan Federal Election Commission unanimously urged Congress to amend federal campaign finance law to require the agency to keep contributors’ street names and numbers confidential, a reversal of current law’s requirement that the agency make such information public.[2] Furthermore, both California and Texas – two states that agree on little else – already prohibit campaign finance enforcement agencies from posting donors’ street addresses online.[3]

The tragic assassination of Minnesota Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and the shootings of Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, last June understandably spurred immediate action across the country to remove lawmakers’ home addresses from government websites.[4] Protecting public servants and their families is of the utmost importance, and the safety of constituents and campaign supporters must also be a priority.[5] In a digital era increasingly rife with violence aimed at elected officials and activists, exposing donors’ street addresses unnecessarily puts Minnesotans at risk of targeting, harassment, and violence while doing nothing to prevent corruption.

Minnesotans who participate in democracy by exercising their First Amendment right to make political contributions should not be forced to make their homes potential targets or fear for the safety of their families. H.F. 3363’s donor address redaction reforms are a bipartisan, precedent-based policy that appropriately balances the state’s transparency interests in campaign finance reporting with the legitimate safety concerns confronting Minnesotans in the digital era. For these reasons, People United for Privacy Foundation respectfully urges the House Elections Finance and Government Operations Committee to issue a Do Pass report on H.F. 3363.

Sincerely,

Alex Baiocco
Director of Government Affairs
People United for Privacy Foundation

[1] People United for Privacy Foundation’s vision is an America where all people can freely and privately support ideas and nonprofits they believe in, so that all sides of a debate will be heard, individuals will not face retribution for supporting important causes, and all organizations have the ability to advance their missions because the privacy of their donors is protected.

[2] Brian Hawkins, “FEC Moves to Protect Donors from Harassment,” People United for Privacy Foundation. Available at: https://unitedforprivacy.com/fec-moves-to-protect-donors-from-harassment/ (Feb. 20, 2025).

[3] Helen Knowles-Gardner, “In Pursuit of Greater Privacy: A More Nuanced Approach to Disclosure of Candidate Contributions in the Internet Age,” Institute for Free Speech. Available at: https://www.ifs.org/blog/in-pursuit-of-greater-privacy-a-more-nuanced-approach-to-disclosure-of-candidate-contributions-in-the-internet-age/ (June 9, 2025).

[4] Jaimie Ding, “After Minnesota shooting, some states are more tightly guarding officials’ personal information,” Associated Press. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-shooting-legislators-democrats-safety-c9ea37e97290f2a8f580db7bb425522d (June 16, 2025). See also Heather Lauer, “When Participating in the Public Square Turns Deadly, Privacy Can’t Wait,” People United for Privacy Foundation. Available at: https://unitedforprivacy.com/when-participating-in-the-public-square-turns-deadly-privacy-cant-wait/ (June 17, 2025).

[5] PUFPF Staff, “New PUFPF Model Policy Protects Campaign Donors From Political Violence by Redacting Home Address and Employer Information,” People United for Privacy Foundation. Available at: https://unitedforprivacy.com/new-pufpf-model-policy-protects-campaign-donors-from-political-violence-by-redacting-home-address-and-employer-information/ (Oct. 21, 2025).