Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D) has introduced radical legislation that would effectively silence nonprofit organizations, businesses, and labor unions during election debates. Surovell’s bill, S.B. 688, flatly prohibits “business entities” from making any contributions or expenditures in Virginia campaigns. If that weren’t enough, it also imposes contribution and expenditure limits on candidate committees, and it enforces a $25,000 aggregate limit on all political spending by individuals and groups other than party committees.

Readers may recognize that S.B. 688 is unconstitutional. The First Amendment forbids government from restricting how much Americans may speak about candidates for office through limits on campaign spending or independent expenditures (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976). It further protects the rights of corporations, labor unions, and nonprofit organizations to participate in campaigns by making independent expenditures (Citizens United v. FEC, 2010). It even forbids aggregate limits on individual political contributions. (McCutcheon v. FEC, 2014).

S.B. 688 gives a nod to these precedents by conditioning implementation on certification from the Attorney General that the law “is reasonably probable to be upheld as constitutional.” That requirement may prove to be an illusory hurdle, however, as certification can be given on virtually any basis. Among the triggers one would expect to find in legislation like this, such as a long-shot constitutional amendment or U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Citizens United, the bill also provides that the AG may certify for “any other reason, to be specified in the certification.” Hardly a high bar.

Debates about campaign finance laws in Virginia often revolve around the state’s lack of contribution limits and the role of for-profit entities like Dominion Energy. S.B. 688 addresses some politicians’ concerns about these matters at the cost of devastating the voices of nonprofit organizations that play a key role in educating and mobilizing voters throughout the commonwealth. Many of these are left-of-center groups, like the ACLU of Virginia or the Virginia League of Conservation Voters (VALCV). To see the scale of the harm S.B. 688 would inflict, compare the 2025 election to the restrictions proposed in the bill.

In September, ACLU National and the ACLU of Virginia announced a partnership to spend “$1.8 million to educate Virginians on the candidates running for Attorney General this November, as well as candidates for the Virginia House of Delegates in five key districts.” The Virginia League of Conservation Voters PAC (LCV-PAC) outdid them, spending “upwards of a combined $3 million on field, mail, digital, and direct contributions to elect pro-environmental candidates up and down the ballot.” Under S.B. 688, these organizations – and countless others – would be limited to spending just $25,000 in total on all expenditures annually.

Even that may prove to be an optimistic interpretation of the bill. A plain reading of the ban on spending by “business entities” seemingly applies to nonprofits and labor unions as well. The bill states “it is unlawful for any person that is not an individual to make any contribution or expenditure, or for any committee organized under this chapter or any person to knowingly accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section.” (emphasis added.)

In the end, whether nonprofits are banned from spending entirely or limited to just $25,000 a year may not make much of a difference. In a state of nearly 9 million people, it is effectively impossible for nonprofits to engage with a significant number of voters under S.B. 688’s contribution and expenditure limits. Groups like the ACLU and VALCV would be forced to eliminate 99% of their activities educating voters and candidates around elections to stay under a $25,000 per year ceiling.

It is hard to imagine such a radical (and radically unconstitutional) proposal passing into law. Nonprofits, businesses, and labor unions aren’t going to stand idly by as state lawmakers strap duct tape over their mouths. Nevertheless, the mere suggestion of these draconian restrictions – by no less an authority than the Senate Majority Leader – is an extremely troubling sign as the General Assembly considers other extreme measures impacting the First Amendment rights of Virginians and the nonprofit causes they support.

Sadly, the Old Dominion has become a hotspot for proposals restricting political advocacy. S.B. 688 is a signpost from the Senate Majority Leader about how far he would go if the U.S. Supreme Court – and the First Amendment – did not stand in his way. Irresponsible and misleading rhetoric about Citizens United and “dark money” have laid the groundwork for dangerous proposals like S.B. 688. Even if the bill’s odds are long, let’s hope Virginia nonprofits learn to fight for their rights again and speak out against this unconstitutional power-grab to silence their voices in election debates.