In an effort to stifle critical or inconvenient speech, some state lawmakers are increasingly introducing legislation limiting the First Amendment rights of American individuals and organizations based outside a state’s borders. These schemes generally seek to cap or outright ban out-of-state contributions to candidates’ campaign committees and/or other entities that communicate with the public about policy issues and elections. As a new People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF) resource explains, these measures, if enacted, will harm associational freedom, prevent state residents from hearing certain viewpoints, and eventually be ruled unconstitutional.

“Americans not only have a right to participate in important debates happening across the country, we have a right to hear what our fellow citizens have to say, regardless of their address. Legislators shouldn’t attempt to dictate whose voices their constituents are allowed to hear during election season. Such abuse of power flies in the face of foundational American principles and is a blatant offense to speech and association rights,” said Alex Baiocco, PUFPF Director of Government Affairs and the explainer’s author.

State legislation discriminating against out-of-state voices has taken different forms in recent years. Some measures have imposed limits on the amount or percentage of contributions that candidates and committees may accept from out-of-state donors. Others have forbidden out-of-state donations to entities speaking to voters about issues on the ballot. Ultimately, for individuals unable to give and organizations unable to associate with like-minded Americans outside a state, all of these policies function as prohibitions on First Amendment-protected activity.

Nonprofits are often affiliated with national networks and receive both financial and institutional support from donors and organizations across the country. If state-based organizations with expertise in particular policy areas are suddenly required to choose between civic engagement and the resources that make effective engagement possible, the end result will be a cross-ideological dampening of civil society as a whole. Forcing groups to choose between speech and association ultimately means less of both.

“In an environment with out-of-state funding limits, both the national organization and the state chapter are likely to be prohibited from engaging in regulated communications about policy issues central to their missions. For example, an in-state organization may be unable to inform like-minded citizens in the state of candidates’ relevant voting records or may be prevented from speaking to voters about the impacts of ballot measures simply because the group received ‘too much’ funding from its national affiliate,” the resource explains.

Despite courts across the country consistently striking down restrictions on out-of-state giving as unconstitutional, similar bills continue to be introduced in state legislatures.

In 2026, Republican lawmakers in both Georgia and Idaho sought to pass restrictions intended to limit the speech of their critics. In Idaho, H. 719 explicitly sought to ban “independent expenditures” by any nonprofit registered in another state. Though that bill never gained momentum in the Idaho Legislature, S.B. 423 in Georgia passed the Senate but was tabled in the House after a committee removed independent groups from the bill’s reach, effectively negating the sponsors’ intended chilling effect. In addition to PUFPF, a diverse coalition of nonprofits and trade associations expressed concerns about the bill’s blatant unconstitutionality and would-be detrimental impact on their operations in Georgia.

For more information on the speech-chilling effects of these short-sighted proposals and the history of court decisions finding such laws unconstitutional, read PUFPF’s new explainer, “Out-of-State Fundraising Bans and Restrictions: Out of Line With the First Amendment,” available online here and in PDF form here.