“The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” – James Madison at the Constitutional Convention, 1787.

U.S. nonprofits can be forgiven for assuming that laws prohibiting political spending by “foreign-influenced” corporations have nothing to do with them. But if history teaches us anything, it’s that threats to our liberty often come cloaked in rhetoric about danger from abroad. And, when it comes to law, the devil is in the details.

Across the country, a growing number of politicians from both parties are beating the drum for new laws, regulations, and investigations targeted at rooting out alleged foreign money in U.S. political debates. A new report from People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF) explains how one such threat – legislation regulating so-called “foreign-influenced corporations” – endangers longstanding nonprofit advocacy practices, donor privacy rights, and free speech for American citizens.

Federal law already broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions and expenditures in connection with any election. Many states have similar laws. This new generation of proposals aims instead at restricting the speech of American companies and nonprofits that have a small – sometimes miniscule – association with foreign entities.

Most bills define a “foreign-influenced corporation” (FIC) as a business with as little as 1% to 5% foreign ownership. These companies, which include many deep-rooted American firms, are then prohibited from participating in public communications about government and public policy. Nonprofits, meanwhile, may also be silenced if they have accepted donations or membership dues from FIC corporations or if they are simply unable to verify that their donors are not FICs.

“The downstream impacts and multi-layered disincentives are difficult to predict, but the burdens and uncertainties of compliance will have a certain and immediate chilling effect,” writes Alex Baiocco, PUFPF Director of Government Affairs and the report’s author.

If states adopt these laws, we can anticipate reduced civic engagement, a greater risk of politically motivated investigations into nonprofits and companies, and many costly lawsuits challenging their constitutionality. In fact, recent FIC laws in Maine and Minnesota have already been successfully challenged on First Amendment grounds by affected businesses and trade associations.

In Maine, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the law was too broad in its definitions, effectively silencing U.S. corporations. The court noted that the law burdened companies that “were founded in Maine, have operated exclusively there for over a century, and are entirely run by U.S. citizens.”

“In the face of these examples, the 5% threshold starts to look either like an end-run around Citizens United, aimed at silencing a large swath of corporations merely because they are corporations, or an effort to shape the ongoing debate in Maine about its two primary utility companies by silencing one side—the companies themselves,” wrote Judges Lara Montecalvo, Jeffrey Howard, and Seth Aframe.

“Citizens United cautions that the loss of corporations’ political speech, and consequently their First Amendment rights, must not to be taken lightly,” explained U.S. District Court Judge Eric Tostrud in permanently blocking implementation of Minnesota’s law.

The politics of donor privacy on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures may be shifting, but the principles remain rock solid. Without donor privacy, Americans cannot support the causes they believe in without fear of harassment and retaliation. Without the ability to speak out on the issues of the day, nonprofits cannot serve their role in educating the public and exposing government corruption. Crucially, these functions benefit all Americans, regardless of party, and all nonprofits, regardless of their mission.

FIC laws are promoted as a means of protecting our democracy from foreign meddling. In reality, they harm democracy by restricting the rights of Americans to participate in political debates. Lawmakers, nonprofits, donors, and corporate leaders should see these wolves in sheep’s clothing for what they are and stand united in opposition.