In an age of doxxing, violent threats, and professional retribution for people’s policy positions, exposing donors creates real risks.
A cross the country, activists pretending to combat so-called dark money in politics are pushing laws to force nonprofits to disclose their donors’ names and personal information to the government. While they say they’re promoting the public’s right to know, what these activists are really doing is putting targets on the backs of nonprofit donors, threatening to expose them to retaliation and even violence simply for supporting causes they believe in.
This isn’t mere speculation — it is well documented that disclosure mandates in some states have led to attacks against nonprofits and their supporters.
But a case set to be argued before the Arizona Supreme Court this September could become a national turning point for protecting donor privacy and free speech. If the court strikes down Arizona’s Proposition 211 as unconstitutional, its decision could offer the first clear road map for mounting state constitutional challenges to donor disclosure laws across the country.
Proposition 211 is a 2022 ballot initiative that forces nonprofits engaged in public policy debate to disclose to the government their donors’ names, addresses, employers, and donation amounts. Since its passage, activists and politicians have pushed similar rules in more than 30 states. On paper, Proposition 211 targets what it calls “campaign media spending.” In practice, its definitions are so sweeping that a citizen would appear on a publicly available government database simply for donating to a nonprofit that speaks about a ballot measure or mentions an incumbent lawmaker near election time.
Proponents of the measure insist that it’s about “transparency.” But transparency is for the government. Privacy is for individuals. In reality, Proposition 211 and laws like it seek to intimidate and muzzle citizens.
In an age of doxxing, violent threats, and professional retribution for people’s policy positions, exposing donors creates real risks. Protecting privacy in giving isn’t about secrecy; it’s about shielding citizens from those who would weaponize their personal information.
Moreover, donor disclosure laws like Proposition 211 are often so vague and complex that they discourage people from speaking at all. Few citizens can navigate these rules with confidence, and well-intentioned nonprofits struggle to know when disclosure is required. Faced with the threat of fines, lawsuits, or costly legal advice, many citizens and nonprofits choose silence over the risk of speaking. That silence doesn’t make democracy stronger — it makes it less resilient.
Disclosure laws also shift the focus from ideas to identities. Debate should rise or fall on the strength of an argument, not the pedigree of the speaker. Our Founders understood this. The Federalist Papers — written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the shared pseudonym Publius — helped secure ratification of the Constitution precisely because anonymity had allowed ideas to be judged on their merits.
For decades, courts have recognized that the right to private association is essential to freedom and protected by the Constitution. In the 1950s, when Alabama sought to ban the NAACP from operating in the state, it demanded the group’s membership list. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the legality of the demand, recognizing the “vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” That principle holds just as true today.
That’s why the Goldwater Institute and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, now a partner at the law firm of Holtzman Vogel, are representing the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and individual donors in challenging Proposition 211. The case is brought under the Arizona Constitution, which provides even stronger safeguards for free expression and association than the U.S. Constitution. Because virtually every state has its own constitutional provisions for free expression and association, a favorable decision from the Arizona Supreme Court can serve as an important precedent.
“Dark money” is a loaded, misleading term. Depending on how it’s defined, it could describe a donation to the ACLU, your local church, or the neighborhood soup kitchen, and it could span thousands of charities, schools, hospitals, museums, and advocacy organizations across the ideological spectrum. So, when activists rail against “dark money,” they’re really talking about stripping privacy from everyday Americans who give to nonprofits — left, right, and center. At their root, Proposition 211 and laws like it do not empower citizens — they silence them. They do not shine light on corruption — they cast a shadow over free expression and association. And they do not strengthen democracy — they weaken it by discouraging people from supporting their favorite causes.
Privacy in association has always been central to American freedom. When the government strips it away, you don’t get more accountability; you get less speech. That’s a price no free society should be willing to pay.
The Arizona Supreme Court has the chance to lead the country in saying so — and to reaffirm that in a truly free society, citizens can support causes they believe in without fear.
Jon Riches is the vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute. Andrew Gould is a partner at Holtzman Vogel and a former Arizona Supreme Court justice.