With most state legislatures now out of session for the remainder of 2025, we can reflect on prominent policy trends impacting nonprofit advocacy and donor privacy across the country. The good news: By and large, diverse coalitions of civic organizations and bipartisan opposition from elected officials sank many of the most severe threats to speech and privacy rights. However, as People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF) predicted, there was no shortage of legislation aimed both directly and indirectly at exposing Americans’ private donations to nonprofit causes and hampering organizations’ ability to engage in civic debates. Though this overview is by no means exhaustive, below are some of the most concerning legislative trends PUFPF has monitored this year. A retrospective on some of the most positive trends strengthening donor privacy protections this session will follow.

I. Retribution Remains Top Motive for Disclosure Demands

Perhaps the most perennial threat faced by nonprofits and their supporters is legislation motivated by elected officials’ desire to silence and punish those they view as political enemies. Fortunately, aside from some of the less direct threats discussed below, none of the more “typical” nonprofit donor disclosure bills passed in 2025.

A New Hampshire bill, H.B. 175, that would have enshrined regulations for newly defined “coordinated expenditures” was killed via voice vote in the House in late March. Among other additions to the state’s already expansive speech regulations, H.B. 175’s proposed “coordination” rules included language stating that a communication that “refers to” a candidate or political party 120 days before a primary through the general election is “promoting the success or defeat” of a candidate or party. Under existing law, whether an organization’s activities are considered to be “promoting” the “success or defeat” of a candidate or party has significant regulatory implications.

In New Mexico, Senate Majority Floor Leader Peter Wirth’s (D) crusade to remove references to the limiting phrase “a political purpose” from campaign finance disclosure requirements died after facing significant opposition from a coalition of New Mexico-based progressive nonprofits. If Wirth’s bill (S.B. 85) had become law, New Mexico’s campaign finance disclosure requirements would have explicitly applied to nonprofit speech and donations that have nothing to do with campaigns.

In Ohio, provisions that would’ve forced nonprofits to comply with the same donor disclosure requirements as political committees simply for engaging in occasional, incidental political advocacy were snuck into a nearly 6,000 page budget bill, H.B. 96, via amendment. Fortunately, lawmakers removed the constitutionally suspect language in conference after it was spotlighted by a concerned nonprofit coalition.

Virginia nonprofits and their supporters faced a host of threats to their speech and privacy rights in 2025, ranging from legislation aimed at exposing donors on the face of issue ads (H.B. 2670, S.B. 906) to various proposals broadening and adding vagueness to disclosure-triggering speech regulations (H.B. 2173, H.B. 2484, S.B. 1185). Under these failed bills, remaining silent would be the only safe option for nonprofits to avoid jeopardizing their members’ privacy. That these mostly Democratic proposals were defeated in a Democratic-controlled legislature is a heartening indication that members of both parties in Virginia understand the importance of protecting privacy in association and nonprofit advocacy.

While similar retribution-motivated threats will almost certainly return in some, if not all, of the above states, hopefully the trend of bipartisan opposition sinking these harmful proposals will continue into 2026. In some states, however, similar threats remain active, being kept alive by partisan interests.

In Michigan, House Democrats’ revamped “BRITE Act” package (H.B. 4269–H.B. 4270) includes nonprofit donor disclosure mandates that were curiously absent from last year’s proposal, when Democrats controlled the House. Much like their Michigan counterparts, House Democrats in Ohio are exploiting a recent scandal involving the disgraced former Speaker as a pretext for targeting nonprofits and their supporters with a reintroduced version of the so-called “Ohio Anti-Corruption Act.” And in Pennsylvania, House Democrats reintroduced a bill (H.B. 374) that would force every donor to a nonprofit that spends any amount speaking about candidates or ballot measures to submit a report of the donation to the Department of State. A broader companion package still lingering in House and Senate committees (H.B. 542/S.B. 11) would, among other speech and privacy incursions, force nonprofits to list their “Top Five Contributors” within ads about candidates or ballot measures while also introducing separate disclosure requirements triggered by contributions or expenditures for “issue advocacy campaigns.”

II. “Original Source” Disclosure Spreads Like Wildfire

Forcing nonprofits to violate the privacy of their supporters through “top-funder” disclaimer requirements leaves many advocacy organizations with a horrible choice: Either fund messages that will thrust their top contributors into the spotlight, thereby making those individuals targets for the group’s opponents, or stay silent on issues central to their missions. Remarkably, exposing the donors of the organization paying for the ad isn’t enough for some lawmakers. A proposal that combines top-funder disclaimers with so-called “original source” donor disclosure is spreading quickly to states across the country.

Under an “original source” disclosure regime, if a nonprofit receives funding from another nonprofit and then triggers disclosure requirements, the recipient organization must disclose the contributing group’s donors on its own report. And if the contributing group is supported by nonprofit donors, donors to those nonprofits must also be disclosed, and so on and so forth with no discernible endpoint. In other words, these laws force organizations to report not only their own donors, but their donors’ donors, on and on down the chain.

Top-funder disclaimer requirements are the most public and direct means of tying individual supporters to specific communications they may not be aware of or even support. Combined with “original source” requirements, private citizens could find themselves being named in a message by a group they never supported.

The blueprint for “original source” nonprofit donor disclosure, combined with top funder disclaimer requirements, became law in Arizona via Proposition 211 in 2022. Despite multiple challenges to the Arizona law in both federal and state court, the anti-privacy extremists that cooked up this model have already found both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in states across the country eager to import their scheme to hamstring nonprofit civic engagement. The immediate chilling effect the law has had on Arizona advocacy organizations – many of which did not realize the broad scope of speech regulated by the proposal due to misleading rhetoric from its cheerleaders – is a feature, not a bug, of this scheme.

Fortunately, nonprofits across the ideological spectrum have quickly become aware of the true impact of these proposals and are not falling for the mischaracterizations that pacified many would-be opponents in Arizona. Consequently, sponsors from both parties are facing bipartisan opposition among their colleagues in red, blue, and purple states.

In Colorado, S.B. 25-148, a sweeping Democratic proposal from the leadership committee’s Chairman, was defeated in a bipartisan committee vote shortly after the bill’s first hearing. In Hawaii, H.B. 1478 failed a legislative deadline without so much as a committee hearing; however, the bill will carryover to the 2026 session. Idaho Senator Doug Okuniewicz’s (R) “original source” bill, S. 1186, failed to become law thanks to an outcry from a diverse group of organizations in the Gem State, including organizations that often find themselves on opposite sides of other policy debates. Maine Senator Rick Bennett’s (R) multi-year effort to import the invasive and speech-chilling policies of Arizona’s Prop 211 to his own state via L.D. 951 (S.P. 406) failed again this year, also due in large part to opposition from nonprofits across the ideological spectrum.

Minnesota DFLs’ S.F. 905 moved quickly through its first committee of referral but stalled after being re-referred to a second Senate committee and awaits possible consideration next session as a carryover bill. A sweeping Democratic proposal to restrict speech and expose nonprofit donors in North Carolina, including through “original source” disclosure and top-funder disclaimers, failed this session. In North Dakota, H.B. 1286, a Republican-backed bill, died on the House floor in a 32-53 vote following opposition from the Secretary of State and a nonprofit. Another related bill (H.B. 1583), also sponsored by a Republican and opposed by the Secretary of State, was stripped of its “original source” and top-funder disclaimer provisions in committee, subsequently passed the House, and ultimately died in the Senate. Notably, this marks the second session where both Arizona-style bills failed in North Dakota, after one of the sponsors brazenly acknowledged in chilling fashion: “I need to know who my enemies are.”

III. Republican Attacks on Out-of-State Donors Rise

Frustration with organizations funded by “out-of-state” donors and so-called “dark money” has led some state lawmakers, primarily Republicans, to propose legislation aimed at restricting political participation by such groups or outright banning donations from anyone outside the state. Efforts to prohibit speech from in-state groups with out-of-state donors are not only unconstitutional, they also have wide-ranging negative impacts on the speech and privacy rights of in-state organizations and their supporters. Arguably, such proposals are little more than another ham-fisted means of chilling opposition to lawmakers’ policy agendas.

For example, in Idaho, Senator Okuniewicz’s (R) “original source” bill (S. 1186) was borne out of a desire to silence “big money special interests who really have no business exerting their will over the residents of this state.” A Kansas bill aimed at foreign donors, H.B. 2106, attracted an amendment banning donations from “out-of-state persons” but ultimately became law without the ban. A Republican-sponsored ban on out-of-state funding of initiative petition drives, S.B. 1027, was signed into law by Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (R). In Oregon, a Republican-backed joint resolution (H.J.R. 3) was introduced but ultimately died that would have prohibited any non-Oregon voters from directly or indirectly donating to ballot question committees or nonprofits that comment on pending ballot measures. Companion bills in Texas, H.B. 3592 and S.B. 405, would have imposed campaign contribution limits exclusively on contributors with a principal address outside the state. Though both bills ultimately failed, H.B. 3592 passed the House with robust support.

IV. Lawmakers Sneak “Electioneering Communication” Regulations into AI Disclaimer Bills

One common way that lawmakers seek to expand donor disclosure requirements beyond election campaign funding is through the regulation of so-called “electioneering communications.” This term generally refers to ads aired close to an election that mention a candidate, usually a sitting lawmaker, but do not urge voters to vote for or against the candidate. By expanding the period of time in which “electioneering communications” are regulated to cover portions of the legislative session, lawmakers can make it difficult or impossible for advocacy nonprofits to criticize their actions or ideas without running afoul of complex campaign finance rules. 2025 saw the birth of a phenomenon in which legislation imposing disclaimer requirements on communications using artificial intelligence was exploited as a vehicle to sneak new “electioneering communication” regulations into law.

Such legislation introduced this year included S.B. 33 and S.B. 64 in Alaska, S.B. 150 in Illinois, S.B. 4 in Kentucky, S.B. 2642 in Mississippi, S.B. 509 in Missouri, and H.B. 2479/S.B. 775 in Virginia. The Alaska and Illinois bills failed to advance but will carryover to the 2026 session. The relevant provision in Kentucky became law as part of a broader artificial intelligence regulation package. The bills in Mississippi, Missouri, and Virginia died; however, the Virginia bills required vetoes from Governor Glenn Youngkin (R).

V. Legislation Targeting “Foreign” Influence Potentially Impacts Americans

Much like the debate over artificial intelligence, 2025 saw a smattering of proposals ostensibly aimed at curbing “foreign influence” that, in practice, could do more to curb the speech and privacy rights of Americans. While not every measure targeting foreign nationals in state elections directly threatens donor privacy, most would expand government authority to investigate nonprofits and seize their donor lists, creating fertile ground for abuse and inviting politically motivated fishing expeditions.

Since federal law already broadly prohibits foreign contributions and expenditures in any U.S. election, including at the state and local level, many of these state proposals intentionally reach beyond candidate campaigns to directly impact groups engaged exclusively in issue advocacy.

Efforts to expose and prohibit foreign influence took a number of forms in 2025, but four types stood out: ballot question foreign donor bans, “foreign-influenced corporation” regulation, state copycats of the federal Foreign Agents Registration Act, and third-party litigation financing disclosure.

Ballot Question Foreign Donor Bans

One common target of foreign influence bills this session was advocacy related to ballot measures. While ballot measure committees are subject to reporting requirements in many states, many issue-focused nonprofits that generally do not trigger campaign finance regulations may incidentally trigger reporting requirements as a result of speaking about a ballot measure tackling an issue related to their mission. Most nonprofits do not track the citizenship of every donor to their cause, a nearly impossible task for small groups with limited resources and for large organizations receiving thousands of small and large contributions. But under a model bill that was introduced in 16 states in 2025, nonprofits speaking about ballot issues would need to verify the citizenship status of their donors over the past four years as a condition of opining on a pending ballot issue.

In 2025, Republican-backed proposals based on this model became law in nine states: Arkansas (H.B. 1837), Indiana (H.B. 1467), Kansas (H.B. 2106), Kentucky (H.B. 45), Louisiana (H.B. 693), Missouri (S.B. 152), Montana (H.B. 818), Tennessee (H.B. 888), and Wyoming (H.B. 337). Most of these bills were enacted with limited donor privacy protections in recognition of concerns about abuse by government officials, but these protections, while welcome, don’t negate the opportunity for further tampering by enforcement authorities and the serious compliance issues for nonprofits engaged in constitutionally protected speech about issues on the ballot.

Additional bills and legislatively-referred initiatives based on this policy were introduced but ultimately died (or will carryover) in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and Utah while a measure is pending in North Carolina (H.B. 958). Several bills banning political contributions from foreign nationals more narrowly were introduced but failed to pass (or are pending) in California, Illinois, Mississippi, New York, and Texas.

“Foreign-Influenced” Corporation Regulation

While Republicans were busy introducing legislation to muzzle ballot measure advocacy, Democrats continued their efforts to unfairly smear American businesses as “foreign-influenced corporations” and smother their ability to engage in ongoing debates. Though their intended targets differ, the strategies behind these separate agendas are virtually identical: Classify American entities as “foreign” in order to justify stripping American speakers of First Amendment protections.

This legislation typically defines a “foreign-influenced corporation” or “foreign-influenced business entity” as any company with as little as 1% of its equity owned by a foreign investor or 5% owned, in aggregate, by multiple foreign investors. American businesses that meet this nonsensically broad definition are then prohibited from participating, directly or indirectly, in a wide range of public communications about government and public policy. Nonprofits that receive corporate donations or collect membership dues from businesses would also face significant threats to their speech and privacy rights under most of these proposals.

Such bills are pending in Massachusetts (H. 875/S. 525) and Pennsylvania (H.B. 497) while bills in Hawaii (S.B. 1032), Illinois (H.B. 3071), and New York (A. 1258/S. 324) will carryover. Prior to 2025, similar measures passed in Maine (by ballot initiative) and Minnesota (via legislation) but were ultimately struck down in court.

“Baby FARA” Bills

Though regulation of ballot measure advocacy – especially when applied to communications by organizations that are not ballot measure committees – inherently creates compliance risks and burdens for many issue-focused nonprofits, there is, at least, a case to be made that significant expenditures on direct appeals to “vote yes” or “vote no” on a specific ballot question may justifiably trigger spending reports. Indeed, many state campaign finance laws already apply to ballot measure advocacy. Some lawmakers, however, have decided that nonprofits speaking about any policy issue, regardless of whether it will appear on the ballot, should be forced to track and report the citizenship status of their supporters.

The federal Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) shows the dangers of this path. FARA’s sweeping scope has long been used to burden lawful advocacy, and now many Republican lawmakers are pushing state laws modeled after the statute. Under these proposals, even a single donation from a Chinese or Russian citizen could trigger onerous reporting and brand an organization as serving a hostile power – a framework ripe for political abuse.

These “Baby FARA” bills were signed into law this year in Arkansas (H.B. 1800), Florida (S.B. 700), Louisiana (H.B. 686), Nebraska (L.B. 644), and Texas (H.B. 119). Like all foreign influence legislation, these laws come with new abuse-prone investigation and enforcement powers that pose serious risks for nonprofits. Similar bills creating new registration and disclosure requirements for so-called “foreign-supported political organizations” or “agents of a foreign principal” will automatically carryover to next session in Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

Third-Party Litigation Financing Disclosure

Another threat to nonprofit donor privacy in 2025 has been legislation imposing disclosure requirements triggered by third-party litigation financing. While such laws are generally aimed at those investing in lawsuits, especially foreign sources, in exchange for a portion of fee awards or settlements, broadly written litigation financing disclosure bills may impact American nonprofits engaged in important pro bono and public interest legal work.

Fortunately, lawmakers in some states recognized this unintended consequence and added explicit exemptions for nonprofits. Bills including such exemptions were signed into law in Arizona (S.B. 1215) and Georgia (S.B. 69). A bill focused exclusively on foreign financing of litigation became law in Oklahoma (H.B. 2619), and another bill is still active in North Carolina (H.B. 315). Third-party litigation financing bills died in Maryland (S.B. 985) and New Mexico (H.B. 312) this session.

VI. Unique and Novel Threats Continue to Emerge

Some of the more unique efforts to regulate and restrict speech in 2025 included an Alaska bill (H.B. 100), which will carryover to the 2026 session, that would impose a state tax on spending on speech about federal candidates and an Arkansas bill (H.B. 1773), which died, to unconstitutionally limit contributions to ballot measure committees. Florida passed a similar hare-brained restriction in 2022 that was ultimately blocked by the courts.

In Maryland, Governor Wes Moore (D) signed a first-of-its-kind bipartisan bill (S.B. 633) to require a top-five “disbursement” disclaimer on all solicitations by entities that file campaign finance reports. Under the new law, groups, including nonprofits, that make “electioneering communications,” “independent expenditures,” or contributions to entities that engage in electoral advocacy must include within fundraising materials “the five recipients to which the person made the largest expenditures or disbursements during the immediately preceding calendar quarter.” In other words, the law essentially requires a top-vendor disclaimer instead of a top-donor disclaimer.

In several states, legislators are proposing restrictions on utility companies’ ability to spend money on political and issue advocacy. Three bills in California (A.B. 884, A.B. 1167, and S.B. 24) and two in Michigan (H.B. 4381 and H.B. 4382) are pending. One such bill became law in Delaware (S.B. 60) this year, and another died in Oregon (S.B. 88). In Washington, similar legislation applied to healthcare companies (S.B. 5243) will carryover to next session.