Last year, bipartisan opposition derailed Senator Rick Bennett’s (R) crusade to export the invasive and speech-chilling policies of Arizona’s Proposition 211 law to Maine. Undeterred by testimony in 2023 opposing that bill due to the “risks to [donors’] privacy and safety” along with its “spectacularly burdensome reporting and notification requirements,” Sen. Bennett recently reintroduced his legislation this session as L.D. 951. And despite constitutional concerns raised by both the Maine Attorney General’s Office and the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, this year’s bill is even more expansive than its predecessor.

Fortunately, Sen. Bennett will likely have even more difficulty convincing his colleagues to ignore the nonprofit community’s concerns this time around. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Maine Conservation Voters, respectively, submitted the testimony referenced above in opposition to L.D. 951’s predecessor. In response to the latest version’s mid-March hearing before the Joint Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee, those same organizations were joined in opposition by the Maine Education Association, Maine Policy Institute, Philanthropy Roundtable, and People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF).

The hallmarks of legislation, like L.D. 951, modeled after Arizona’s draconian Prop 211 are so-called “original source” donor disclosure and top-funder disclaimer requirements. As PUFPF’s written testimony to the Joint Committee explains:

“L.D. 951’s most pernicious feature is its so-called ‘original source’ donor exposure regime. Under this mechanism, nonprofits engaged in advocacy on policy and political issues central to their mission would be forced to not only disclose their own members and supporters, but also their supporters’ supporters. In essence, this convoluted mandate will compel nonprofits that have always protected the privacy of their supporters to expose the names, home addresses, and employer information of their donors to a group they contribute to in order for the recipient to include that information in its own reports…

Not to be outdone, L.D. 951 also imposes a top 3 funder disclaimer requirement on affected nonprofits, forcing organizations to name-and-shame their top contributors within any communications they produce. This is an aggressively public and direct method of tying individual supporters to specific communications they may not be aware of or even support. Even worse, the top-funder disclaimer mandate in L.D. 951 (and Arizona Proposition 211) requires the inclusion of original source donors. As a result, an individual could find herself being very publicly named in a message by a group she has never actually supported.”

Maine Policy Institute’s testimony warns the Joint Committee that “forced disclosure of donor information exposes individuals to potential harassment, as seen in other states where similar laws led to doxxing campaigns and threats against donors. Requiring disclosure of ‘top funders’ only amplifies these risks, as it targets specific individuals and organizations for undue scrutiny.”

In order to protect the privacy and safety of their donors – and their donors’ donors – organizations will be forced to avoid any activity that may trigger L.D. 951’s public disclosure mandates.

As Philanthropy Roundtable’s testimony admonishes, “This ill-conceived legislation not only jeopardizes the vibrant philanthropic spirit of Maine but also risks diminishing the open exchange of ideas and civic engagement.”

Many groups will also be silenced by the sheer enormity of L.D. 951’s compliance burdens. Smaller organizations, in particular, will be unable to afford the legal counsel necessary to navigate the law’s complex reporting requirements. Furthermore, as PUFPF’s testimony explains, “much like the nonprofit community’s experience in Arizona, L.D. 951 confers significant authority to the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, an unelected body, to sort through thorny issues and inquiries, the answers to which have the potential to chill advocacy from many vital causes.”

As the Maine Education Association’s General Counsel lamented, “it is my view that [the advocates of this bill] have lost sight of a reasonable balance between useful regulation and the time and expense made by political actors on compliance.”

If lawmakers like Sen. Bennett are unconcerned with the myriad threats posed by L.D. 951 to the privacy and safety of Mainers who support nonprofit causes, perhaps they will at least take seriously the inevitable litigation the state will be forced to fund as result of enacting this ploy.

“The passage of Arizona Proposition 211 triggered a flurry of litigation that remains pending in appeals before the Arizona Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While Arizona won initial battles defending the law’s constitutionality, its prospects remain far from settled,” PUFPF’s comments explain. “At a minimum, the Committee would be wise to wait for the outcome of the Arizona litigation before pursuing a substantively similar proposal almost certain to invite lawsuits from affected nonprofits and their supporters in Maine.”

No less an authority than the Maine Attorney General’s Office agrees. In comments opposing L.D. 951’s predecessor, L.D. 1590, the Chief Deputy AG warned lawmakers: “We are concerned about our ability to successfully defend such a challenge. Also, if a challenge were successful, the challenger would likely be awarded attorneys’ fees, which could be significant.”

Last session, 10 of the 13 Joint Committee members voted to issue an “Ought Not to Pass” recommendation on L.D. 1590, and the Senate voted to accept their recommendation in a bipartisan 19-11 vote. In testimony opposing L.D. 951, Maine Conservation Voters advises lawmakers that “all of our objections to last session’s LD 1590 apply here, too.” Similarly, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England is, once again, urging the Joint Committee “to protect vulnerable donors by voting ‘ought not to pass.’”

If there’s a silver lining, it’s heartening to see growing bipartisan opposition to this unyielding threat to both Mainers’ privacy and the valuable nonprofit causes they support. But there’s simply no reason for the Joint Committee, or the Senate, to alter its stance on this intolerable attack on Mainers’ First Amendment-protected speech and association rights.