Few ballot measures have caused more disruption without ever reaching voters than Oregon’s Initiative Petition 9 (IP 9) in 2024. The state’s ongoing troubles in responding to that deeply misguided initiative illustrate the dangers of privacy opponents’ efforts to rewrite campaign finance laws across the country. They also hint at the possible limits of anti-“dark money” politics, even in progressive strongholds.

IP 9 would have imported Arizona’s worst-in-the-nation “original source” nonprofit donor disclosure law and saddled Oregonians with unconstitutional and unworkable restrictions on their First Amendment rights. In a testament to the severity of the threat, concerns about IP 9 were voiced from all corners of civil society. Democratic and Republican lawmakers, nonprofits, labor unions, and businesses all worked together to try to find a better way forward.

The alternative to IP 9 ended up being compromise legislation, H.B. 4024 of 2024, which spurred the measure’s withdrawal. It was a victory for donor privacy, given the circumstances, but no one was truly satisfied. The rushed legislation still harmed privacy and associational rights, just not as severely as IP 9 would have. Disclosures were still increased, but not enough to satisfy privacy opponents.

Even that compromise has proved unworkable. State leaders, including House Speaker Julie Fahey (D), House Majority Leader Ben Bowman (D), and Secretary of State Tobias Read (D), led a successful effort this session – with support from many Republicans – to delay and amend the law. Governor Tina Kotek (D) signed the legislation (H.B. 4018) into law on April 9.

A laundry list of Oregon labor unions, trade associations, and civic groups supported the bill. They include: AFT-Oregon, For All Families Oregon, Northwest Health Foundation, Oregon AFL-CIO, Oregon AFSCME, Oregon Business and Industry, Oregon Education Association, Oregon Futures Lab, Oregon League of Conservation Voters, Oregon Nurses Association, Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association, Oregon State Fire Fighters Council, SEIU, and United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555 as well as representatives from other groups.

H.B. 4018 delays the implementation of the law’s disclosure requirements until 2031, giving the state and regulated organizations more time to prepare. The bill also makes various clarifying and limiting amendments to the law’s “original source” disclosure requirements. Original source disclosure – which requires nonprofits to painstakingly trace and expose entire chains of donors across the charitable sector – is one of the Arizona law’s defining and most dangerous features.

Oregon already boasts hostile laws for donor privacy, so it’s noteworthy to see state leaders bucking activists’ demands for more. Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising: Across the country, bipartisan coalitions increasingly work together to support pro-privacy reforms and defeat anti-privacy bills. The reasons for this movement are easy to understand.

Underneath the rhetoric, laws aimed at eliminating so-called “dark money” are really censorship and mass surveillance programs. They make it illegal for groups of Americans to participate in public discussions about elections, government, or public policy unless they organize and expose their donors like a PAC. They construct public databases tracking every American’s support for social and political causes, which can be weaponized by corrupt officials to target critics and political opponents. They expose donors and their families to threats and intimidation at their homes and workplaces. And they cut down the grassroots with complex and vague regulatory language that only a specialized attorney can even attempt to understand.

These are not the changes Americans have in mind when they complain about campaign spending or money in politics. Americans want their government to be more accessible and welcoming to citizen engagement, not less. They want to tear down the barriers that give powerful groups, political insiders, and sophisticated actors an advantage, not create even more obstacles.

Nonprofits and their donors, members, and the communities they advocate for have important perspectives to offer. It’s refreshing to see Oregon leaders stand up for their constituents against the anti-privacy activists that aim to silence those voices.

Of course, the saga is far from over. Privacy opponents have already pledged to pursue another ballot measure in 2028 as retribution for the passage of H.B. 4018. For their part, lawmakers have also hinted at considering additional changes to the law in the 2027 session. Indeed, S.B. 1502 (also signed into law by Governor Kotek) requires the Secretary of State to submit legislative recommendations for changes to the campaign finance code in advance of next year’s session.

All in all, it’s a complicated situation with a simple takeaway: When privacy opponents set the agenda for “reform,” bad things happen. Fortunately, broad-based, bipartisan coalitions are ready to fight back.