New York’s Donor Disclosure Bill Crosses a Constitutional Line

​Political speech in New York may soon come with strings attached. A new bill introduced by State Sen. Patricia Fahy would force independent expenditure groups to plaster the names of their top donors across political ads, mailers, robocalls, and digital messages. What proponents call “transparency” is, in truth, a direct threat to donor privacy and a likely violation of the First Amendment.
 
Fahy’s legislation would compel any group making independent expenditures to list its top three donors, those who have given more than $1,000 in the past year, on every public communication. It would also require the campaign treasurer’s name and a link to disclosure filings with the State Board of Elections. While these groups already report donor information to the state, this bill would take it one step further by forcing the disclosure directly into the content of an ad.
 
Fahy claims this is about accountability, pointing to outside groups spending millions on state and local races. She argues voters deserve to know who is behind the messages they receive. But the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that forcing groups to reveal their donors, especially in public-facing messages, poses a serious risk to First Amendment freedoms.
 
In Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta (2021), the Court ruled that California’s demand for donor lists, even for internal regulatory use, was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts called such compelled disclosure a “restraint on freedom of association,” citing the Court’s landmark 1958 ruling in NAACP v. Alabama. That case protected civil rights donors from being exposed to violent reprisals.
 
We have seen what happens when donor identities become political weapons. After California forced disclosure of supporters of Proposition 8, donors were doxed, threatened, and harassed. Some received envelopes of white powder. Others saw their personal information mapped online. The chilling effect was unmistakable.
 
New York City already mandates direct donor disclosure on independent expenditures (IE) in local races. Under rules enforced by the NYC Campaign Finance Board, IE ads must list the spender’s principal officer and their top three donors, along with a link to the CFB’s disclosure site. But this local law should serve as a warning, not as a model. Expanding this flawed policy statewide invites litigation and fails the Supreme Court’s exacting scrutiny standard.
 
The Constitution does not bend to political convenience. While regulators may seek clarity in campaign finance, they must do so within constitutional bounds. Sen. Fahy’s bill fails that test. It treats compelled speech as harmless and public exposure as inconsequential. It ignores the real dangers that come with making people’s political beliefs a matter of public record.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS