Republican lawmakers in North Dakota are still seeking retribution against nonprofits that have been critical of their voting records. In 2023, the last year the North Dakota Legislative Assembly met in Bismarck, multiple “original source” donor disclosure bills were introduced by Republicans who made no secret of their motivations.

Representative Mike Schatz (R) referenced specific mailers sent by a nonprofit when discussing his newfound interest in exposing advocacy organizations’ donor lists, explaining, “It’s a little different when it’s your name under the funny hat.” Senator Jeff Magrum (R) put it even more bluntly: “I need to know who my enemies are.”

Following the defeat of 2023’s retribution schemes, Rep. Schatz introduced H.B. 1286 in the 2025 session. Sen. Magrum, who reiterated his self-interested motivations for backing the bill, joined as a sponsor. Under the proposal, nonprofits that spend more than $200 over a two-year period on advocacy deemed to be “for a political purpose” would be forced to submit a “tracing record” of “original funds” received by the organization. Ultimately, the Secretary of State would publish the names and mailing addresses of donors who gave more than $200. As with all “original source” legislation, if one of those donors was another nonprofit, then that nonprofit’s donors would also have to be disclosed, ad infinitum.

Additionally, if a nonprofit spends any amount on a “political advertisement” – defined to include communications “reflecting upon [a] candidate’s personal character or political action” as well as messages about ballot measures – H.B. 1286 would require the group to name the top three “ultimate and true sources” of “traceable funds” on the face of such communications. (Of note, the bill also expands the definition of “candidate” to include “[a]n individual holding public office,” regardless of whether they’re actually a candidate at the time.)

While Rep. Schatz claims his bill would make political speech more truthful, it would require groups to publish inaccurate information. Under H.B. 1286’s government mandated script, the list of names would be followed by the text, “are the top three donors that helped pay for this advertisement.” But since those listed within the disclaimer would have to be traced back to “original funds,” some of the listed individuals wouldn’t even be donors to the organization. Disclaimers naming individuals within messages they may not support – or even know about – and paid for by an organization to which they’ve never donated are only beneficial to those looking to build enemies lists and discourage opposition. McCarthyism has never relied much on accurate information.

Thankfully, H.B. 1286 ultimately failed in a 32-53 House floor vote after facing bipartisan opposition, including from the Secretary of State’s Office, during its committee hearing and in floor debate.

A separate, exclusively Republican-sponsored “true and ultimate source” disclosure bill, H.B. 1583, was eventually stripped in the House of all provisions related to campaign finance reporting requirements and left only with an expansion of existing law prohibiting “false information in political advertisements.” However, the end goal of the introduced bill was the same: Create a means of punishing critics and chilling critical speech. That bill eventually failed in the Senate in an 11-36 vote after passing the House, 55-34. H.B. 1583 was similarly opposed by Secretary of State Michael Howe (R) and an advocacy nonprofit, the Brighter Future Alliance, on constitutional grounds.

Two broader campaign finance rewrite bills, H.B. 1377 and S.B. 2156, also failed this session. While neither was aimed directly at exposing nonprofit members and supporters, PUFPF monitored the legislation closely, since any tinkering with campaign finance reporting requirements and associated definitions could potentially have a significant impact on nonprofits’ advocacy rights and the privacy of their supporters.

The bills largely focused on changes to candidates’ contribution and expenditure reporting obligations. While both measures went through multiple rounds of amendments, fortunately neither morphed into an immediate nonprofit privacy threat. The fate of both bills was ultimately the result of differences between the two chambers.

S.B. 2156 passed the Senate with no opposition in mid-February, but Senators unanimously rejected the amended version returned by the House in late April. Likewise, after the House refused to concur with the Senate’s amendments to H.B. 1377, lawmakers formed a conference committee in an attempt to reach a compromise. That effort ended with a 4:00 AM rejection by the Senate in the last vote of the session on Saturday, May 3 following a bitter disagreement between the two chambers.

While North Dakotans survived another session of threats to their free speech and privacy rights, the Republican-controlled state has lamentably cemented its status as one where troublesome legislation is to be expected. The Legislative Assembly only meets in odd-numbered years, but North Dakota nonprofits and their supporters will almost certainly face a similar crop of threats beginning in January 2027.