Some of the most sweeping legal transformations hinge on nothing more than redefining a single term. A recent scare for donor privacy rights in Oklahoma shows the danger. Fortunately, quick action quelled the threat.

Last month and again this week, we sounded the alarm about a proposal at the Oklahoma Ethics Commission (OEC), Amendatory Ethics Rule 2.79, that would have vastly expanded the definition of “political action committee” (PAC) in state law. Under the proposal, nonprofits that spend small amounts advocating for or against ballot measures, or on communications that reference candidates and elected officials in the months preceding an election, would be defined as PACs. As a PAC, they would be forced to file regular reports with the state and publicly expose the names, addresses, occupations, and employers of all donors over $50.

Forcing nonprofits to disclose their donors can lead to harassment, threats, and other forms of retaliation by people opposed to the group’s mission, including government officials. It’s also unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects donor privacy, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized in cases such as NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021). States cannot ignore these precedents simply by claiming they are regulating campaign finance.

Moreover, doxing donors to nonprofits is harmful to democracy, especially in an era of political violence. Forming or joining a nonprofit organization with like-minded citizens is one of the primary ways Americans participate in civil society and political debate. When the government imposes campaign finance disclosure rules on nonprofits, it stifles the voices of countless Americans while strengthening the grip of major media corporations and incumbent politicians over political discourse.

Fortunately, after criticism from People United for Privacy Foundation and others, the OEC formally withdrew the proposal at its January 15 meeting, citing an array of comments in opposition from nonprofits and the public. That’s great news for Oklahomans and for the state, which avoided a costly lawsuit had the proposal ultimately been advanced by the Commission and approved by the Legislature.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which oversees federal cases arising from Oklahoma, has flatly ruled that forcing PAC status on a group spending $3,500 on a ballot question violated the First Amendment. Amendatory Ethics Rule 2.79 upsets far more activity for far less spending,” PUFPF Vice President Matt Nese and Senior Fellow Zac Morgan explained in recent comments to the OEC.

State-mandated doxing of donors discourages charitable giving and chills the free speech rights of the nonprofit community. Instead of looking for new ways to harass those who speak out, Oklahoma and other states should strengthen protections for Americans who exercise their First Amendment rights to participate in civic debates.