Welcome to The Disclosure Digest! Keep an eye out for new editions published on Tuesdays through June 2022. 

Federal lawsuit challenges Alaska donor disclosure law

On April 7, five Alaska residents and several independent expenditure groups filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Public Offices Commission in U.S. district court challenging donor disclosure requirements enacted through a 2020 ballot measure. 

Background

Alaska voters approved Alaska Ballot Measure 2, an indirect initiated state statute, on Nov. 3, 2020. Before the measure’s enactment, section 15.13.040(j)(3) of Alaska’s code required entities to disclose the name, address, principal occupation, and employer of each contributor donating more than $250 per year if the contribution was for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election. Section 15.30.090(c) required political communications (such as ads) to feature disclaimers disclosing who paid for the communication and the paying entity’s largest contributors. 

The measure amended the law to require entities contributing more than $2,000 to independent expenditure groups to disclose the sources of the contributions if those funds were derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts. It also required independent expenditure groups’ paid election communications to feature a disclaimer if a majority of the communication’s funding was derived from out of state money. The disclaimer must remain on screen for the entire TV or online communication. The measure also established open primaries and ranked-choice voting in general elections. 

Lawsuit

On April 7, 2022, five political donors and independent expenditure groups including the Liberty Justice Center, the Alaska Free Market Coalition, and Families of the Last Frontier, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that portions of Ballot Measure 2 are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment. 

In the suit, the plaintiffs said, “Vague, indeterminate, and overly burdensome campaign finance laws that burden everyday people with compliance burdens supporting political and issue entities violate their First Amendment rights.” The plaintiffs also said forcing organizations to disclose their donors could result in “reprisals against them and their business interests in the current climate of cancel culture.” 

The lawsuit also challenged the communication disclaimer requirements. The plaintiffs said, “Compelling speakers to recite a government-imposed script is subject to strict scrutiny, which these provisions cannot survive,” and the “out-of-state disclaimer requirement also unduly discriminates against the First Amendment rights of the non-residents.”

In the final argument of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs said the requirements violate the right to free association: “By compelling non-profit organizations to disclose their donors when churches, chambers of commerce, or other groups make choices to support independent expenditure efforts, for multiple layers of groups and donors, the law violates this privacy principle inherent in the freedom of association.”

What comes next

The lawsuit will be heard by Chief Judge Sharon L. Gleason in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. As of April 18, the court had not announced a hearing date. Alaska Department of Law spokesperson Daniel Cacciatore said the department was reviewing the complaint. Scott Kendall, an attorney for Alaskans for Better Elections, filed a motion to intervene in the case on April 12 and said the group would fight “this baseless suit and defend the reforms passed in 2020.” 

Reactions

Daniel Suhr of the Liberty Justice Center, said, “Our system should be built for everyday people to be able to make their voices heard in the public square to support candidates and causes that they believe in.” Doug Smith, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said, “These overly intrusive requirements will shut down speech in Alaska. We should welcome and encourage debate over important issues in Alaska, rather than impose laws and requirements that deter people from supporting causes they believe in and open them up to political intimidation.”

Jason Grenn, executive director of Alaskans for Better Elections, said, “Alaskan voters made it clear that they want increased campaign transparency and have a right to know who is spending money on their elections. Nothing in ballot measure two violates the first amendment, nor does it limit political speech.” 

What we’ve been reading

• Detroit News, “Michigan judge assigned abortion law case a donor to plaintiff Planned Parenthood,” April 14, 2022 
• The Roanoke Star News, “Gov. Youngkin Signs Bill Protecting Donor Privacy,” April 12, 2022
• Missouri Independent, “In Senate race full of millionaires, Missouri must wait to see finances of newest entrant,” April 15, 2022

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state: We’re currently tracking 139 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure and privacy. Of these bills, 112 are primarily focused on disclosure, and 27 are primarily focused on privacy. To reflect this distinction, the charts in this section and the recent legislative actions below are divided between disclosure legislation and privacy legislation. On the maps below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Donor disclosure legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Donor privacy legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Recent legislative actions

For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here. 

Donor disclosure legislation

• Colorado HB1060: This bill would set limits on contributions to candidates for school district director and require candidates to disclose campaign contribution information to the secretary of state.  
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was enacted on April 13.
• Connecticut HB05455: This bill would prohibit a donor from making a contribution under any name but their own. 
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on April 12.
• Connecticut SB00431: This bill would require committees to report referendum spending as an independent expenditure. It would also require committees to disclose donors for certain types of referendum spending.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on April 14.
• Kentucky HB740: This bill would require a candidate exempt from filing a campaign finance report to file a 30 day post-election report of receipts and disbursements. It would also require a candidate who is exempt from filing for the primary who advances to the regular election to refile for the filing exemption. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was enacted on April 14.
• Maine LD1782: This bill would prohibit a ballot question committee from making contributions to a candidate or political action committee if some or all of the contribution comes from a business.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was enacted on April 11. 

Donor privacy legislation

• Kentucky HB241: This bill would allow the Transportation Cabinet and the Energy and Environment Cabinet to receive, accept, and solicit contributions from a governmental agency, individual, nonprofit organization, or private business for the Adopt-a- Highway Litter Program or other statewide litter programs. These contributions would be treated as restricted funds and would not be subject to state disclosure restrictions. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was vetoed on April 11. 
• Virginia HB970: This bill prohibits government agencies from requesting or disclosing donor information from any 501(c) organization. The bill exempts the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act of 2006 from the privacy requirements.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was enacted on April 11.

Welcome to The Disclosure Digest! Keep an eye out for new editions published on Tuesdays through June 2022. 

An overview of the arguments on donor disclosure and privacy

As part of our coverage of donor disclosure and privacy, Ballotpedia created a taxonomy of arguments supporting and opposinsg each side of the policy debate. The arguments generally focus on three main subject areas:

• Disclosure of donor information to governments. 
• Disclosure of information to the public. 
• Whether disclosing donor  information causes political polarization. 

This issue provides an overview of these arguments and examples from our recent coverage of legislation and court activity. 

Disclosing information to governments

Supporters of disclosing donor information to governments say disclosure limits corruption and foreign influence, minimizes the ability of nonprofits to advance private interests, and benefits nonprofits as an endorsement of their mission. Supporters also say inadvertent disclosure of sensitive information is rare and that disclosure does not deter donations or place an undue burden on nonprofits. Commenting on Minnesota HF3190, a bill that would require organizations making independent expenditures to name their three largest contributors, State Rep. Jamie Long (D) said the bill “does not stop any speech, does not curtail any speech,” and it would “help voters make better informed choices” by allowing them to see who is funding an ad. “If the ad you see is from Minnesotans for Sunshine and Puppies, but it’s backed by somebody with a clear political point of view you would want to know that. Could there be an appearance of corruption? Could there be a financial interest involved? Voters want to know,” Long said.

Opponents of disclosing donor information to governments say it violates free speech rights and rights to free association and privacy. They contend that disclosure rules are a solution in search of a problem and consume resources with no clear benefit or purpose, and the government has other means to combat fraud and corruption. Other arguments opposing disclosure say that governments may unintentionally disclose confidential information, which could lead to donor harassment. In a statement opposing Minnesota HF3190, State Rep. Jim Nash (R) said the bill would put people at risk of “being doxxed by the people who oppose the exercise of free speech” and asked lawmakers to consider “the implications of what happens. An ordinary, everyday business owner who wants to donate to a candidate of their choice and they may happen to be the top donor.”

Disclosing information to the public

Supporters of public disclosure say it increases accountability, deters corruption, and limits the ability of major donors to use nonprofits to advance their own interests. Public disclosure advocates say donor visibility benefits nonprofits as an endorsement of their mission, does not inhibit charitable giving, and does not constrain donors’ constitutional rights to free speech and free association. Other advocates of public disclosure say it’s the donors’ responsibility to stand behind their positions, and disclosure provides the public with information about who is attempting to influence public policy. Regarding Florida’s public disclosure bill, H1547, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington press secretary Jenna Grande said the bill would “deny the public legitimate investigations into fraud and corruption. When it comes to understanding how organizations with public influence operate, it’s imperative their financial records are accessible and transparent.” 

Opponents say it violates the rights of free speech, free association, and privacy, and could subject donors to potential harassment and retaliation. Critics of public disclosure say this inhibits charitable giving, diminishes the ability of nonprofits to achieve their goals, and suppresses controversial or politically unpopular ideas or groups that the public should have the right to be aware of. In a complaint filed with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin (R) said “compelled disclosure of [an organization’s] donors could lead to substantial personal and economic repercussions for their supporters” and “if their donors are disclosed, their membership and revenue will decline as donors prioritize their anonymity over supporting Plaintiffs’ work.”

Disclosure and political polarization

Those who say limiting donor disclosure causes political polarization believe undisclosed nonprofit spending allows donors to have an outsized influence on American politics, which has eroded the public’s trust in governments and made communications more opaque. Critics of limiting disclosure also say it creates incentives for controversial ideas to spread in the public square. In a 2021 amicus brief filed in the Americans for Prosperity v. Becerra case, attorneys for a group of Democratic U.S. Senators said: “Citizens United opened the door to unlimited political spending by powerful influencers. Rampant violation of that decision’s transparency predicate has allowed such influencers to wield that power anonymously, through dark money expenditures.”

Conversely, those arguing that limiting donor disclosure does not cause political polarization believe it ensures controversial or politically unpopular ideas and causes can be seen and heard in the public square and that nonprofit donor confidentiality is not the source of political conflict. They say political and social polarization exists even when political campaign donations are fully transparent. In its Supreme Court brief in Americans for Prosperity v. Becerra, Americans for Prosperity said: “Historic strides have often been achieved by private groups espousing ideas that others may (at a particular time and place) violently oppose. Our country would be far less just—and the public square less diverse—if Americans could not support causes anonymously.”

What we’ve been reading

• The National Law Review, “Not-For-Profits, Charities Might Attract More Donors with Improved Website Content, Attention to Privacy,” March 14, 2022
• Bridge Michigan, “Michigan GOP seeks lobbying, finance reforms after Lee Chatfield scandal,” March 17, 2022
• Augusta Free Press, “General Assembly defeats 20 of 24 campaign finance reform bills in 2022 session,” March 17, 2022

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state: We’re currently tracking 132 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure and privacy. Of these bills, 107 are primarily focused on disclosure, and 25 are primarily focused on privacy. To reflect this distinction, the charts in this section and the recent legislative actions below are divided between disclosure legislation and privacy legislation. On the maps below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Donor disclosure legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Donor privacy legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Recent legislative actions

For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here. 

Donor disclosure legislation

• California SB1439:  This bill would change the prohibition on contributions from 3 to 12 months following a decision in a license, permit, or other entitlement for use proceeding and remove the exception for local government agencies.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 16.
• Florida H1359: This bill prohibits the governor, lieutenant governor, or a member of the cabinet from soliciting or accepting a contribution during the 60-day regular legislative session or a special legislative session. It would also require a political committee that is dissolved to dispose of all residual funds and file a report reflecting the disposition of such funds within 90 days of its dissolution. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida H1373: This bill would change the contribution threshold requiring a group to file a statement of organization from $5,000 to $1,000 and change the deadline for filing the statement to 24 hours after the end of the qualifying period for the office sought by the candidate. It would also require electioneering communications organizations to disclose the identity of donors, the amount contributed, and the purpose of each expenditure.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida H6109: This bill would remove provisions that preempt counties, municipalities, and other local governmental entities from enacting or adopting limitations and restrictions involving certain contributions and expenditures or establishing contribution limits different than those defined under state law. 
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida S1352: This bill would prohibit a foreign national from making or offering to make contributions or expenditures in connection with any election held in the state.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida S1836: This bill would change the contribution threshold requiring a group to file a statement of organization from $5,000 to $1,000 and change the deadline for filing the statement to 24 hours after the end of the qualifying period for the office sought by the candidate. It would also require electioneering communications organizations to disclose the identity of donors, the amount contributed, and the purpose of each expenditure.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Kentucky HB740: This bill would require a candidate exempt from filing a campaign finance report to file a 30 day post-election report of receipts and disbursements. It would also require a candidate who is exempt from filing for the primary who advances to the regular election to refile for the filing exemption. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 14.
• Louisiana SB227: This bill would require an entity applying for state grant funding to disclose the names of foreign donors who contribute more than $50,000 to the entity. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 14.
• Maryland HB1343: This bill would require a state contractor to file a disclosure statement with the State Board of Elections if the contractor contributed to a nonprofit organization that funds public communications relating to a project in which the contractor has a financial interest.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 18.
• Michigan HB5910: This bill would set contribution limits for recall committees and require these committees to report contributions over a certain amount. 
  • Bipartisan sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 15.
• Michigan HB5928: This bill would require committees’ campaign finance reports to be published online and available to the public. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 16.
• New York S08588: This bill would require political action committees to report contributions exceeding $10,000 in any calendar year to the state board of elections.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 17.
• Wisconsin AB819: This bill would prohibit referendum committees from accepting contributions from foreign nationals.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 15.
• Wisconsin SB795: This bill would prohibit referendum committees from accepting contributions from foreign nationals.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 15.

Donor privacy legislation

• Alaska HB234: This bill would amend political contribution limits so that they do not apply to an individual, group, or nongroup entity contributing to a group or nongroup entity that only makes independent expenditures.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill passed the lower chamber on March 16.
• Connecticut HB05222: This bill would repeal the requirement for paid solicitors to submit the text of planned solicitations and remove the ability of the Department of Consumer Protection to inspect contribution records upon request. 
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 16.
• Florida H0617: This bill would exempt donors who contribute to the direct-support organization of the Statewide Council on Human Trafficking from public records requirements and provide an exemption from notice requirements for specified meetings. It provides for future legislative review and repeal of the exemption under the Open Government Sunset Review Act.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida S0294: This bill would exempt donors who contribute to the direct-support organization of the Statewide Council on Human Trafficking from public records requirements and provide an exemption from notice requirements for specified meetings. It provides for future legislative review and repeal of the exemption under the Open Government Sunset Review Act.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida H1547: This bill would prohibit a public agency from requiring a 501(c)(3) organization to provide personal information or otherwise compel the release of personal information. This bill would not apply to any report or disclosure required for campaign financing under chapter 106 or lobbying under chapter 11.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Florida S1848: This bill would prohibit a public agency from requiring a 501(c)(3) organization to provide personal information or otherwise compel the release of personal information. This bill would not apply to any report or disclosure required for campaign financing under chapter 106 or lobbying under chapter 11.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill died in committee on March 14.
• Kansas HB2495: This bill would prohibit a state agency from requesting or releasing the personal information of donors to 501(c) organizations.  
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 16.
• Kansas HB2579: This bill would allow a candidate for state office to request an exemption from the electronic filing requirement for campaign finance reports.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 18.
• Louisiana HB170: This bill would allow candidates, officeholders, and political committees to accept contributions in the form of cryptocurrency. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 14.
• Louisiana HB254: This bill would raise the contribution limit to a candidate for any office to $5,000 and the limit for contributions to a political action committee to $10,000.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 14.

Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations. 

Welcome to The Disclosure Digest! Keep an eye out for new editions published on Tuesdays through June 2022. 

Minnesota disclosure bill clears committee

A Minnesota House committee advanced a bill on March 8 that would require nonprofits to disclose donor information for certain independent expenditures. Rep. Jamie Long (D)  introduced HF3190 on Feb. 7 with 12 other Democratic co-sponsors. Sen. Lindsey Port (D) introduced a companion bill, SF3281, on Feb. 21.

What the bill would do

Minnesota law requires groups making independent expenditures to include a disclaimer disclosing the group’s name and either its mailing or web site address. Section 10A.01, subdivision 18 defines independent expenditures as “expenditure[s] expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or local candidate.” Under section 211B.04, subdivision 3, “online banner ads and similar electronic communications that link directly to an online page that includes the disclaimer” are excluded from the disclaimer requirement. 

HF3190 would require organizations making independent expenditures to name their three largest contributors during the year prior to the expenditure being published or becoming public. The bill would remove the exemption for online ads and other electronic communications, subjecting them to the same disclosure requirements as other independent expenditures. 

The bill also redefines express advocacy. Section 10A.01 of the state code currently defines express advocacy as “a communication clearly identifies a candidate or a local candidate and uses words or phrases of express advocacy.” This bill would amend the definition to include a communication which, “when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, such as the proximity to the election, is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal advocating the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates.”

The bill was referred to the House State Government Finance and Elections Committee, which held three hearings on it. The committee voted 8-4 to send the bill to the House Ways and Means Committee on March 8. Seven of the committee’s eight Democratic members voted to advance the bill (Rep. Gene Pelowski (D) was absent) along with Republican committee member Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R). The four other Republican members voted no. The House Ways and Means Committee must advance the bill for it to be considered by the full House. 

Minnesota is one of two states with a divided legislature where neither party controls both the upper and lower chambers. The Democratic Party controls the Minnesota House of Representatives and the office of governor, while the Republican Party controls the upper chamber of the Minnesota State Senate.

Legislators in Nebraska, Virginia and West Virginia have also introduced bills that would require groups making independent expenditures to report their top contributors. Like HF3190, Virginia HB489 and SB318 would require organizations to disclose their top three contributors, while Nebraska LB8 and West Virginia SB107 would require groups to identify any person who contributed more than $250. 

Reactions

Long said the bill “does not stop any speech, does not curtail any speech,” and it would “help voters make better informed choices” by allowing them to see who is funding an ad. “If the ad you see is from Minnesotans for Sunshine and Puppies, but it’s backed by somebody with a clear political point of view you would want to know that. Could there be an appearance of corruption? Could there be a financial interest involved? Voters want to know,” Long said. Rep. Ginny Klevorn (D) said, “Free speech is important to all of us, and we want to make sure that we keep free speech front and center. Good healthy campaign finance laws and good healthy election laws make that happen.”

Rep. Jim Nash (R) said the bill would put people at risk of “being doxxed by the people who oppose the exercise of free speech.” Nash, who voted against the bill,  asked the committee to consider “the implications of what happens. An ordinary, everyday business owner who wants to donate to a candidate of their choice and they may happen to be the top donor.” Rep. Jon Koznick (R) said the legislature should be doing more to protect free speech. “You should be working in the opposite direction to instill people’s free speech rights more strongly in how they support different candidates,” said Koznick .

What we’ve been reading

• Associated Press, “General Assembly OKs bill creating candidate finance audits,” March 10, 2022
• WFLA, “Florida campaign finance reform allows unlimited spending to fight constitutional amendments,” March 7, 2022
• Philanthropy Roundtable, “Chilling Support to the Canadian Trucker Freedom Convoy,” March 9, 2022

The big picture

We’re currently tracking 128 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure and privacy. Of these bills, 103 are primarily focused on disclosure, and 25 are primarily focused on privacy. To reflect this distinction, the charts in this section and the recent legislative actions below are divided between disclosure legislation and privacy legislation. On the maps below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Donor disclosure legislation

Number of relevant bills by state:

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Donor privacy legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Recent legislative actions

For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here. 

Donor disclosure legislation

• California SB1352: This bill would require elected officials and campaign committees to report online contributions in excess of $1,000 to the secretary of state within 72 hours of receiving the contribution. 
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 9.
• California SB1360: This bill would require certain political advertisements to identify the top contributors to the campaign committee paying for the advertisement without regard to any minimum contribution threshold.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 9.
• California SB1439:  This bill would change the prohibition on contributions from 3 to 12 months following a decision in a license, permit, or other entitlement for use proceeding and remove the exception for local government agencies.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 9.
• Colorado HB1060:This bill would set limits on contributions to candidates for school district director and require candidates to disclose campaign contribution information to the secretary of state. 
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 8.
• Florida H0921: This bill would prohibit a foreign national from making or offering to make contributions or expenditures in connection with any election held in the state.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill passed both chambers on March 10.
• Georgia SB580: This bill would prohibit political action committees affiliated with General Assembly members from accepting contributions during a legislative session.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill passed both chambers on March 9.
• Idaho S1337: This bill would require any candidate who receives contributions or makes expenditures that total $500 or more to begin filing a monthly report by the 10th day of the month following the month being reported. This requirement would apply to both election years and non-election years. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 8.
• Kentucky HB301: This bill would require all costs and expenses related to election administration be paid for with public funds and prohibit a state governmental body employee from accepting contributions to assist with election administration unless entered into as a lawful contract.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill passed both chambers on March 11.
• Kentucky HB740: This bill would require a candidate exempt from filing a campaign finance report to file a 30 day post-election report of receipts and disbursements. It would also require a candidate who is exempt from filing for the primary who advances to the regular election to refile for the filing exemption. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 9.
• Minnesota HF3190: This bill would require entities making independent expenditures to name the three individuals or entities making the largest contribution required to be reported under chapter 10A.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 10.
• Pennsylvania HB852: This bill would require a nonprofit that expects to make contributions or expenditures of $25,000 or more in a calendar year to a political committee or campaign to file a statement of organization with the Department of State. The nonprofit would also be required to file a report of the source of the 10 largest cumulative payments of $10,000 or more the nonprofit received in the current calendar year from a single person.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 10.
• Virginia HB492: This bill would require campaign committee treasurers to keep accounts of campaign contributions and expenditures and authorizes the Department of Elections to conduct reviews of a percentage of campaign committees. The Department of Elections would report the results of the reviews to the State Board of Elections, the Governor, and the General Assembly and make them available on the Department’s website.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill passed both chambers on March 10.
• Wyoming HB0049: This bill would increase the penalty for failing to file disclosure reports.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill passed both chambers on March 7.
• Wyoming HB0080: This bill would require all campaigns and political action committees to file an itemized statement of contributions and expenditures.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was enacted on March 9.

Donor privacy legislation

• Colorado HB1156: This bill would exempt candidates who file their personal disclosure statement within 180 days before Jan. 10 from having to file an annual personal disclosure statement for that year.
  • Bipartisan sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 10.
• Idaho H0746: This bill would exempt corporations organized under the laws of the United States in a parent-subsidiary relationship with a foreign national corporation from prohibitions on foreign contributions.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 8.
• West Virginia HB4419: This bill would remove restrictions on candidate and campaign caucus committees’ donations to their affiliated state party executive committees or a caucus campaign committee.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill passed both chambers on March 12.

Welcome to The Disclosure Digest! Keep an eye out for new editions published on Tuesdays through June 2022.

Washington AG announces settlement in campaign finance case

On March 2, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) announced a settlement with a grocery trade group, ending nine years of litigation over the group’s alleged failure to disclose their donors’ identities in a campaign against a 2013 ballot initiative. Under the terms of the settlement, the group will pay a reduced fine in return for accepting responsibility for violating Washington’s disclosure laws and agreeing not to pursue an appeal.

Background

On Nov. 5, 2013, voters rejected the Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure (Initiative 522) 51% to 49%. The initiative would have required foods and seeds containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled. If these foods were not labeled correctly, a penalty of up to $1,000 per day per mislabeled item could have been assessed on the violator.

The Consumer Brands Association, then called the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), spent more than $11 million against the initiative. Ferguson, who took office on Jan. 16, 2013, sued the group in Thurston County Superior Court in October 2013 alleging it had failed to disclose the identities of some of its largest corporate donors, including Coca-Cola, General Mills, and Nestlé. According to Ferguson, the GMA was required to reveal whether it asked members to donate for the specific purpose of opposing the measure under Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act. If so, the GMA was required to register as a political committee and disclose donor names. Ferguson said the association was attempting to shield members from scrutiny for opposing the initiative, which was “precisely the conduct our campaign disclosure laws are designed to prevent.”

Ferguson’s office initially sought a $44 million dollar fine against the group. In November 2016, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Anne Hirsch ordered the GMA to pay $18 million after determining that the group intentionally concealed its donors in violation of Washington campaign finance laws. Hirsch also granted the state’s request that it be compensated for legal fees, ordering the GMA to pay an additional $1.1 million. According to the Capital Press, the fine was the largest ever levied against an organization for campaign finance violations in the U.S., exceeding the previous record of $3.8 million in fines that the Federal Elections Commission imposed on the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. in 2006. The GMA appealed the case to the Washington Supreme Court, which granted review of the case on June 4, 2021. 

Washington Supreme Court decision and settlement

On Jan. 20, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the $18 million fine, ruling  5-4 that the state did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of excessive fines. Writing for the majority, Judge Steven Gonzalez (appointed by Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) in November 2011) said, “GMA has not shown that the trial court erred in imposing a punitive sanction under the FCPA based on the amount intentionally concealed. We affirm the courts below and remand for any further proceedings necessary and consistent with this opinion.”

The Consumer Brands Association said it would appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that the fine violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Stacy Papadopoulos, the group’s attorney, said “The state’s legal process has been tainted by partisan politics, and the ruling in this case will chill core political speech by legitimate organizations based on their viewpoints. The only winner in this decision is politics – not the law, the facts or the American public.” 

On March 2, Ferguson announced the state would settle the case for $9 million. Of that amount, $3 million would go to charitable organizations working to combat hunger, and $6 million would be deposited in the state’s Transparency Account, which funds the Washington Public Disclosure Commission. As part of the settlement, the Consumer Brands Association would not appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and would formally apologize. 

In 2020, Ballotpedia published a study on how state supreme court justices decided the cases that came before them. The Washington Supreme Court decided 9.1% of all cases it decided in 2020 in 5-4 rulings, according to our 2020 study Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters. Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, also published in 2020, studied the partisan affiliation of state supreme court justices. It found that the Washington Supreme Court included eight Mild Democrat justices and one justice with an indeterminate affiliation.

Reactions

In a press release, Ferguson said, “Illegal dark money has no place in Washington elections. My office will be relentless ensuring dark money special interests that intentionally violate our campaign finance laws will be held accountable — even if it takes a decade.” The Washington Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision and the risk of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the fine influenced his decision to settle, Ferguson said: “I did not want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this case. To have lost on that issue before the U.S. Supreme Court would have significantly altered our campaign-finance laws.”

In a statement, the Consumer Brands Association said, “We are pleased to successfully settle this nearly decade-old legacy litigation that was inherited by our new team and new organization. Our agreement with the state of Washington not only saves our association millions of dollars, it directs $3 million to hunger relief charities Food Lifeline and Northwest Harvest, causes aligned to our industry’s values.” 

As part of the settlement, the group accepted responsibility for violating state law and issued an apology: “The Grocery Manufacturers Association accepts responsibility for failing to disclose donors in a timely manner in a 2013 ballot initiative and failing to register as a political committee in accordance with Washington State campaign finance disclosure requirements. We acknowledge the ruling of the Washington Supreme Court and apologize to the voters of Washington State.”

Public Disclosure Commission Chair Fred Jarrett said, “This was a strong case, thanks in large part to the outstanding work by PDC investigators who uncovered the smoking gun documents. The excellent advocacy of the AGO has brought us to a reasonable resolution. It provides an opportunity for careful investments to support the crucial role of the PDC, as the Legislature intended when it created the Transparency Account just a few years ago, and a contribution to food security in our region.”

According to the Seattle Times, opponents of I-522 raised approximately $22 million, setting the record for the most money ever raised – in support or opposition – for a Washington ballot measure. In 2018, groups opposing the Washington Carbon Emissions Fee Measure (Initiative 1631) exceeded that amount, raising approximately $31.5 million. 

What we’ve been reading

• Reason, “Exposing Donations to Political Causes Can Chill Free Speech,” March 2, 2022
• The San Diego Foundation, “What to Know about Donor-Advised Funds in 2022: Rules, Tax Deductions, Comparisons and More,” March 3, 2022
• MarketWatch, “‘You should publicly announce where the money is going to’: Elon Musk gave $5.7 billion in Tesla stock to charity, but the beneficiaries may forever remain a secret,” Feb. 21, 2022

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state: We’re currently tracking 118 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure and privacy. Ninety-seven of these bills are primarily focused on disclosure, and 21 are primarily focused on privacy. To reflect this distinction, the charts in this section and the recent legislative actions below are divided between disclosure legislation and privacy legislation. On the maps below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Donor disclosure legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Donor privacy legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Recent legislative actions

For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here. 

Donor disclosure legislation

• Florida H0921: This bill would prohibit a foreign national from making or offering to make contributions or expenditures in connection with any election held in the state.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 2.
• Georgia SB580: This bill would prohibit political action committees affiliated with General Assembly members from accepting contributions during a legislative session.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 1.
• Idaho S1337: This bill would require any candidate who receives contributions or makes expenditures that total $500 or more to begin filing a monthly report by the 10th day of the month following the month being reported. This requirement would apply to both election years and non-election years. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 1.
• Idaho S1367: This bill would require the disclosure reports to be publically available on the secretary of state’s website. 
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 4.
• Indiana SB0388:  This bill would require a postsecondary educational institution to submit a report to the Indiana commissioner for higher education disclosing gifts of at least $50,000 from a foreign source. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was enacted on March 1.
• Kansas SB537: This bill would require state agencies, political subdivisions, state contractors and vendors to disclose certain contracts, gifts or grants received from foreign sources.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was introduced on March 1.
• Kentucky HB301: This bill would require all costs and expenses related to election administration be paid for with public funds and prohibit a state governmental body employee from accepting contributions to assist with election administration unless entered into as a lawful contract.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 3.
• Kentucky HB740: This bill would require a candidate exempt from filing a campaign finance report to file a 30 day post-election report of receipts and disbursements. It would also require a candidate who is exempt from filing for the primary who advances to the regular election to refile for the filing exemption. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 3.
• Louisiana SB227: This bill would require an entity applying for state grant funding to disclose the names of foreign donors who contribute more than $50,000 to the entity. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 3.
• Missouri HB2891: This bill would require corporations and foreign non-profit organizations that make expenditures over $500 in support or opposition to a candidate or ballot measure to file a report disclosing the name and address of the person making the expenditure.  
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was introduced on March 1.
• Utah HB0346: This bill would prohibit a a higher education institution from accepting funding from a restricted foreign entity.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 4.
• Virginia HB492: This bill would require campaign committee treasurers to keep accounts of campaign contributions and expenditures and authorizes the Department of Elections to conduct reviews of a percentage of campaign committees. The Department of elections would report the results of the reviews to the State Board of Elections, the Governor, the and General Assembly and make them available on the Department’s website.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 2.
• Wyoming HB0049: This bill would increase the penalty for failing to file disclosure reports.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 1.
• Wyoming HB0080: This bill would require all campaigns and political action committees to file an itemized statement of contributions and expenditures.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill passed both chambers on March 4.

Donor privacy legislation

• Alabama HB432: This bill would provide exceptions to the prohibition on lobbyist contributions to public officials, including allowing lobbyists to make lawful donations to campaigns. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 2.
• Alaska HB234: This bill would amend political contribution limits so that they do not apply to an individual, group, or entity contributing to a group or entity that only makes independent expenditures.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 2.
• Kansas HB2495: This bill would prohibit a state agency from requesting or releasing the personal information of donors to 501(c) organizations.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 1.
• Kansas HB2579: This bill would allow a candidate for state office to request an exemption from the electronic filing requirement for campaign finance reports.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 2.
• Louisiana HB254: This bill would raise the contribution limit to a candidate for any office to $5,000 and the limit for contributions to a political action committee to $10,000.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 28.
• West Virginia HB4419: This bill would remove restrictions on candidate and campaign caucus committees’ donations to their affiliated state party executive committees or a caucus campaign committee.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on March 1.

Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations. 

Welcome to The Disclosure Digest! Keep an eye out for new editions published on Tuesdays through June 2022. 

Idaho legislator introduces bill increasing disclosure requirements

On Feb. 21, Idaho Sen. Patti Anne Lodge (R) introduced a bill in the Idaho Senate that would require candidates for state office to report contributions over a certain amount in both election and non-election years. Rep. Caroline Nilsson Troy (R) is co-sponsoring the bill.

What the bill would do

Idaho law requires candidates to report campaign contributions  and expenditures of more than $1,000 every month during election years. In off years, candidates are only required to report contributions of $1,000 or more within 48 hours of receiving the donation. Local elections in Idaho are generally held in odd years while statewide elections are held in even years. Idaho S1337 would lower the threshold for contribution or expenditure reporting from $1,000 to $500, requiring any candidate receiving contributions or making expenditures over that amount to begin filing a monthly contribution report regardless of which year the contribution occurred. 

Lodge said she introduced the bill after individuals contacted her asking for the change and attributed the requests to recent changes to the Secretary of State’s online campaign finance system. The new system, implemented in January, 2022, allows users to view contributions and expenditures for each candidate as they are submitted. “This legislation was brought to me by several different folks after they started watching the campaign finance as it’s being presented in our new system,” Lodge said. 

Lodge told the Senate State Affairs Committee the bill would increase the transparency of campaign finance reporting in the state: “This was brought for transparency because elections have become year-round now. It’s for those that are collecting a lot of money and aren’t reporting anything, and then all of a sudden you see that $20 million has been placed in our campaigns and there’s no transparency on it.” The committee held a hearing on the bill on Feb. 25. 

Idaho has a Republican trifecta, meaning the Republican Party controls both chambers of the legislature and the governorship. Republicans have a 58-12 majority in the Idaho House of Representatives and a 28-7 majority in the Idaho Senate. 

Of the 118 bills Ballotpedia is currently tracking, 26 would modify contribution thresholds in some way. Of these 26 bills, 12 have not progressed beyond being introduced, 13 have been referred to legislative committees, and one is dead. 

What we’ve been reading

• Anchorage Daily News, “National Republican group sidesteps new disclosure law with $3 million donation in Alaska governor’s race,” Feb. 18, 2022
• Sludge, “Florida Republican Introduces ALEC Bill to Protect Dark Money in Politics,” Feb. 25, 2022
• New York Focus, “More Than Three Thousand Campaigns Violated Campaign Finance Law. The State Board of Elections Brought Enforcement Actions Against Zero.,” Feb. 25, 2022

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state: We’re currently tracking 118 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure and privacy. Ninety-seven of these bills are primarily focused on disclosure, and 21 are primarily focused on privacy. To reflect this distinction, the charts in this section and the recent legislative actions below are divided between disclosure legislation and privacy legislation. On the maps below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Donor disclosure legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Donor privacy legislation

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Recent legislative actions

For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here. 

Donor disclosure legislation

• Colorado HB1060: This bill would set limits on contributions to candidates for school district director and require candidates to disclose campaign contribution information to the secretary of state. 
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 25.
• Florida H0921: This bill would prohibit a foreign national from making or offering to make contributions or expenditures in connection with any election held in the state.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 24.
• Idaho S1337: This bill would require any candidate who receives contributions or makes expenditures that total $500 or more to begin filing a monthly report by the 10th day of the month following the month being reported. This requirement would apply to both election years and non-election years. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 22.
• Indiana SB0134:  This bill would require appropriations of any money donation from a nongovernmental organization to a state agency or local unit of government to be listed in a separate line item in the budget of the state or local unit of government. The budget line item described in subdivision must specify each individual state employee or local government employee, whichever is applicable, whose salary is funded in whole or in part from the donated money.
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was enacted on Feb. 23.
• Iowa HF2514: This bill would require candidate committees to report the aggregate amount of contributions made by each donor and loans received from any person during the reporting period.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 23.
• Kansas SB537: This bill would require state agencies, political subdivisions, state contractors and vendors to disclose certain contracts, gifts or grants received from foreign sources.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was introduced on Feb. 23.
• Maryland SB15: This bill would allow the state board of elections to impose a civil penalty for failure to report and maintain a record of campaign contributions. It would also prohibit an individual from running for office or becoming the treasurer of a campaign committee if they fail to pay a civil penalty under this section. 
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 25.

• Minnesota SF3281: This bill would require entities making independent expenditures to name the three individuals or entities making the largest contribution required to be reported under chapter 10A to the expending entity during the 12-month period before the expenditure was published or presented to the public
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 21.
• Minnesota SF3283: This bill would prohibit a candidate or political committee from accepting a contribution if in exchange for the contribution the candidate or committee is granted special access to a meeting room, hospitality area, or other event space where public officials are likely to gather.
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 21.
• Wyoming HB0049: This bill would increase the penalty for failing to file disclosure reports.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 24.
• Wyoming HB0080: This bill would require all campaigns and political action committees to file an itemized statement of contributions and expenditures.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 23.

Donor privacy legislation

• Connecticut HB05222: This bill would repeal the requirement for paid solicitors to submit the text of planned solicitations and remove the ability of the Department of Consumer Protection to inspect contribution records upon request. 
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 24.
• Kansas HB2495: This bill would prohibit a state agency from requesting or releasing the personal information of donors to 501(c) organizations.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 23.
• Kansas HB2579: This bill would allow a candidate for state office to request an exemption from the electronic filing requirement for campaign finance reports.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill passed the lower chamber on Feb. 23.
• Kansas SB429: This bill would allow a candidate for state office to request an exemption from the electronic filing requirement for campaign finance reports.
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 21.
• Louisiana HB170: This bill would allow candidates, officeholders, and political committees to accept contributions in the form of cryptocurrency. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 24.
• New Hampshire SB302: This bill would prohibit public agencies and bodies from disclosing any information that directly or indirectly identifies a person as a member, supporter, volunteer, or donor of financial or nonfinancial support, to any nonprofit organization and from requiring a nonprofit to disclose information about its donors. 
  • Bipartisan sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 22.
• Alaska HB381: This bill would repeal the reporting requirements for contributions of more than $2,000. 
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 22.

Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations. 

Welcome to The Disclosure Digest! Keep an eye out for new editions published on Tuesdays through June 2022. 

Circuit court dismisses group’s challenge of New Mexico disclosure law

On Feb. 15, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging New Mexico’s disclosure requirements for political action committees. Cowboys for Trump (also known as C4T), a group founded by Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin (R), filed the original suit after New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D) ordered the group to register as a political action committee or pay a fine.

District court lawsuit

In 2019, Oliver ordered Griffin to register C4T as a political committee or pay a $7,800 fine. Under New Mexico’s Campaign Reporting Act, political action committees must disclose donors’ identifying information when the committee makes independent expenditures such as paid advertisements endorsing candidates or supporting or opposing a ballot measure. On June 18, 2020, Griffin filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico arguing that “compelled disclosure of their donors could lead to substantial personal and economic repercussions for their supporters” and “if their donors are disclosed, their membership and revenue will decline as donors prioritize their anonymity over supporting Plaintiffs’ work.”

On Dec. 30, Judge Gregory J. Fouratt dismissed the case, writing the “Plaintiffs have insisted that they do not engage and have no intention of ever engaging in the types of activities that will trigger disclosure under the CRA. Consequently, C4T’s donors have not suffered an injury in fact and are never expected to suffer any such injury.” The court also ruled the group did not have associational standing. Because the group did not make any independent expenditures requiring disclosure, it suffered no injury and could not sue on its members’ behalf. The court gave the group until Jan. 15, 2021, to file an amended complaint. 

Circuit court appeal

Rather than filing an amended complaint with the district court, Griffin appealed the case to the circuit court on April 20. In the appeal, Griffin’s attorney, Colin L. Hunter, argued Oliver used her “enforcement power to trample the First Amendment right to free speech and association of a high-profile ideological opponent” and that the “(mis)use of an unconstitutional law to silence ideological opponents and hinder their ability to associate with one another to amplify their message is contrary to the First Amendments right to free speech and association.” Griffin’s attorney asked the appeals court to reverse the lower court ruling and dismiss the case.

On May 20, New Mexico’s Assistant Attorneys General Neil R. Bell and Amye G. Green filed a brief in support of the lower court’s ruling. They wrote, “Put simply, C4T has not plausibly alleged that its rights have been chilled when it has ‘affirmatively disclaimed’ any intent or desire to engage in the only conduct that would invoke the CRA’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements.”

In oral arguments held on Jan. 21, 2022, C4T attorney Sidney Powell challenged the group’s designation as a political committee, saying, “I think the fact that the registration requirement is imposed on an LLC that simply provides costs for a man to ride his horse across the country carrying a flag is an amazing burden to impose.” Judge Carolyn McHugh, appointed by former President Barack Obama (D),  said the appeal did not challenge the group’s designation as a political committee or the district court’s decision not to address the issue of registration: “I didn’t see anywhere in the briefing to this court where you take issue with the court’s decision to not address the argument. I’d love it if you could point me to where you challenge the district court’s decision that it need not assess whether there was standing for the registration claim.”

The circuit court upheld the lower court ruling on Feb. 15. In the court’s opinion, Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush (R), wrote, “Plaintiffs alleged that they had not made and would not make any independent expenditures that would trigger the reporting or disclaimer requirements. Therefore, compelled disclosure of donor information per those requirements is not plausible. Absent a plausible chance of such disclosure, there can be no chilling effect on any donor’s willingness to donate.” 

“It’s a tough decision and an unfair decision because all I’ve tried doing is supporting Trump and standing up for our freedoms,” Griffin said. State Attorney General Hector Balderas said, “All elected officials and dark money groups in this nation must follow election reporting requirements in order to protect the public interest, and no one is above the law.”

What we’ve been reading

• Orlando Sentinel, “Florida opens investigation into dark-money group key to ‘ghost’ candidate scandal,” Jan. 20, 2022
• Philanthropy Roundtable, “New York Legislature Takes Steps to Protect Identities of Donors, Jan. 31, 2022
• The Roanoke Star, “Campaign Finance Legislation Limps through General Assembly, Feb. 16, 2022

The big picture

Number of relevant bills by state: We’re currently tracking 104 pieces of legislation dealing with donor disclosure and privacy. On the map below, a darker shade of green indicates a greater number of relevant bills. Click here for a complete list of all the bills we’re tracking. 

Number of relevant bills by current legislative status: 

Number of relevant bills by partisan status of sponsor(s): 

Recent legislative actions

For complete information on all of the bills we are tracking, click here. 

• California AB1819: This bill would prohibit contributions from a foreign government, foreign principal, or foreign-influenced business entity.
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 18.
• California AB2528: This bill would require elected officials to file reports electronically with the secretary of state, and these reports would be available for public inspection. 
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was introduced on Feb. 17.
• California SB1352: This bill would require elected officials and campaign committees to report contributions in excess of $1,000 online to the secretary of state within 72 hours of receiving the contribution. 
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was introduced on Feb. 18.
• California SB1360: This bill would require certain political advertisements to identify the top contributors to the campaign committee paying for the advertisement without regard to any minimum contribution threshold.
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was introduced on Feb. 18.
• California SB1439:  This bill would change the prohibition on contributions from 3 to 12 months following a decision in a license, permit, or other entitlement for use proceeding and remove the exception for local government agencies.
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was introduced on Feb. 18.
• Colorado HB1060: This bill would set limits on contributions to candidates for school district director and require candidates to disclose campaign contribution information to the secretary of state. 
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 17.
• Kentucky HB301: This bill would require all costs and expenses related to election administration be paid for with public funds and prohibit a state governmental body employee from accepting contributions to assist with election administration unless entered into as a lawful contract.
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Republican sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 18.
• Maryland HB1343: This bill would require a state contractor to file a disclosure statement with the State Board of Elections if the contractor contributed to a nonprofit organization that funds public communications related to a project in which the contractor has a financial interest.
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 15.
• Maryland SB15: This bill would allow the state board of elections to impose a civil penalty for failure to report and maintain a record of campaign contributions. It would also prohibit an individual from running for office or becoming the treasurer of a campaign committee if they fail to pay a civil penalty under this section. 
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 15.

• Minnesota SF3281: This bill would require entities making independent expenditures to name the three individuals or entities making the largest contribution required to be reported under chapter 10A to the expending entity during the 12-month period before the expenditure was published or presented to the public
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was introduced on Feb. 17.
• Minnesota SF3283: This bill would prohibit a candidate or political committee from accepting a contribution if in exchange for the contribution the candidate or committee is granted special access to a meeting room, hospitality area, or other event space where public officials are likely to gather.
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Democratic sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 21.
• Wyoming HB0049: This bill would increase the penalty for failing to file disclosure reports.
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 15.
• Wyoming HB0080: This bill would require all campaigns and political action committees to file an itemized statement of contributions and expenditures.
  • Primary emphasis: Disclosure
  • Unknown sponsorship
  • This bill was referred to committee on Feb. 15.

Thank you for reading! Let us know what you think! Reply to this email with any feedback or recommendations.