Nevada Becomes the 21st State To Strengthen Donor Privacy Protections
A new law prohibits the state from requiring nonprofits to disclose the personal information of their supporters, protecting Americans’ First Amendment right to free association.

On Thursday, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo (R) signed Assembly Bill 197 into law, prohibiting state agencies from demanding or releasing personal information of nonprofit supporters—actions that could potentially chill speech or violate the right to privacy. With the bill's passage, Nevada becomes the 21st state to strengthen First Amendment protections for donors, volunteers, and members of nonprofit organizations.
The A.B. 197, which was cosponsored by Assemblymembers Shea Backus (D–Las Vegas) and Gregory Hafen (R–Pahrump), clarifies that state governmental entities cannot require nonprofit organizations that have applied for or received a 501(c) tax-exempt status from the IRS to disclose personal information of their supporters, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and donation details. Only certain exceptions apply, such as when such information is required under federal law or a court order, in which case the state must keep the individuals' personal information confidential. Anyone harmed by a violation of this law may bring a civil action against the state and seek damages.
Nonprofit donor privacy is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, as was first determined in the Supreme Court's unanimous National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Patterson ruling. The 1958 decision blocked the Alabama state government from forcing civil rights organizations to release personal, identifying information of supporters, thereby preventing threats, harassment, and intimidation of individuals for their beliefs. The right was reaffirmed and further clarified in the Court's 2021 Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta opinion, which struck down a mandate from former California Attorney General Kamala Harris requiring nonprofits to provide certain donor information to remain registered with the state.
The Nevada bill passed through both chambers of the Legislature with an overwhelming majority and only one vote against it. Even more strikingly, nonprofits from across the political spectrum, such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, Americans for Prosperity, Nevada Right to Life, and Planned Parenthood Votes Nevada, supported the measure.
"Americans are fed up with the abuse of their privacy and First Amendment rights. No one should face threats, doxing, or retaliation simply for supporting a nonprofit organization," said Heather Lauer, CEO of People United for Privacy Foundation, a national privacy rights organization, in a press release.
With the passage of A.B. 197, Nevada joins 20 other states across the political spectrum that have passed similar legislation since 2018. In a time of hyper-partisanship and regular free speech violations—especially from the federal government—it's encouraging to see some state governments still honoring the constitutional protections enshrined in the First Amendment.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
All you ignorant Libertarians , this is where Kamala Harris really proved evil
How Kamala Harris Earned Rebukes from ACLU and SCOTUS on Privacy
'The Breaches of Confidentiality Here Were Massive'
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/08/22/how_kamala_harris_earned_rebukes_from_aclu_and_scotus_on_privacy_1053395.html
'The Breaches of Confidentiality Here Were Massive'
People threatened, their home addresses and phone numbers given out, their livelihood but at stake, great social attacks, ---all because Kamala didn't like the organizations they were giving money too.
Who would hire this vacuous, completely talentless, washed-up politician for any job requiring any intellectual firepower whatsoever?
They wouldn’t. She might make okay mulch though.
Not many actual libertarians have much love for Harris. Reason has published many articles critical of her record as a prosecutor and AG in CA and noting her lackluster record as a Senator and VP. But keep whacking that strawman, you'll get him one of these days.
Freedom of association requires hiding the association.
Got it.
Freedom of association requires not doxxing the associates. You are free to publish your name, address, and any organizations you've donated to on your own, however.
Don't worry, the government can still get those records if it wants them. It's only the people themselves that aren't allowed to see.
...certain exceptions apply, such as when such information is required under federal law or a court order...
Admittedly, that should have already been the case since the 1st amendment already required a warrant for that type of information, but I'm sure these state laws will somehow carry more weight than that.
When the Left is out trying to kill people who support organizations they hate them you can't freely associate without that protection.
Get rid of the left. I can’t imagine there’s much argument against that anymore.
Then you would hate the Founding Fathers , who insisted on anonymity in such circumstances.
You missed the point, again.
Freedom of Association requires neither hiding or disclosing !!! Okay, so there's a logic error "false alternative" but you asssume that if someone has to tell the association there is an AUTHORITY they should tell it . Just you crying that your Biden didn't get his Government Disinformatin Board. Really , you need to stop peering into everybody's soul 🙂 It's creepy
Money is not speech.
Agree. And elections (not politics) are for citizens.
Idk how to deal with the details that might impinge on 1A rights. But it can be a real problem.
The. You agree the only way forward is to criminalize Marxism and eliminate the democrat party?
How is it not speech?
Do you not believe in a free market?
Nope. They don’t. No matter how uh they screech “free markets!” when Trump is using tariffs as a negotiating tool, they hate free markets. And freedom in general, except as it allowed by The Party, and only available for those deemed worthy.
And Jews are especially unworthy to them. Especially to JewFree.
Money is not speech, only speech is speech. One is not the same as the other, though money can facilitate it. Having a large amount of money does not increase the quality or amount of speech you are entitled to; likewise, having no money should not deny your right to speech in a free society. Money, time, and effort are all things that can contribute to 'who / how well / and how far' your speech can achieve access to, but is not a part of nor inherent quality of speech itself.
Treating money as speech only allows those with large amount of it to put an outsized thumb on the scale of the 'marketplace of ideas' that is supposed to be America's model of the political arena. It used to be more so, but after several erosions of the standards that is less and less true. Billionaires, corps, and superPACs love this, which is why they lobbied Citizen's United (one of many things) so hard so that they could use money to compete where vigorous debate & public buy-in used to be necessary.
Do you believe in freedom of the press? You seem not to.
The press did not mean a corporate press. It meant the printing press. Owning one required money to buy and operate.
Freedom of the press literally refers to amplification of speech.
You're arguing this freedom does not exist. Because you're ignorant.
Then again you're openly for government censorship.
Do you even know what the Citizen’s United case was about?
It was about releasing a movie in 2008
So interpretive dance is not speech?
A sign is not speech?
So you're saying that you can't use money to speak?
...dont have to, "Money talks"
Yet the poor folks who donated to Kamala only to have her give it to billionaire Oprah, LibertyBelle is oh so happy about that
Campaign finance records show Harris' $1 million payment to Oprah's production company
Karissa Waddick
USA TODAY Dec 7, 2024
That makes 2 points that don't go together.
WHO decides what is 'too much money" ? YOU ?
And
by your logic, even the person with $200 K doesn't have the thumb of somebody with $400 K , right.
Money is not speech but it is YOUR money to do whatever is not inherently evil and anti-social. Who gave Amazon tons of concessions and still does? Well Obama sure did. Forcing Sunday mail delivery because Amazon wanted it, so USPS 'yessa missah, I be's right on doin it" And it went all the way to Supreme Court on a religious exemption case.
Supreme Court rules against USPS in Sunday work case
https://www.npr.org › 2023/06/29 › supreme-court-reli...
Jun 29, 2023 — The court ruled in favor of Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian postal worker, who refused to work on Sundays for religious reasons
YOu are defending the big big guys but you act as if you are for the small guy.
One more thing: Pollution. Where is Amazon paying for this under Obama and Biden:
Oceana projects that up to 22 million pounds of Amazon’s global plastic packaging waste from 2022 will end up in the world’s waterways and seas, based on data from a peer-reviewed study published in Science in 2020.
Your guys are giving every boost they can to the big big money guys.
Strikingly dumb comment from someone who's usually one of the brighter commenters around here.
Open borders claims more lives as 'Colorado Man' sets old people on fire.
But remember - illegal immigrants set people on fire at a lower rate than native born Americans.
Donnie had four months to deport him. His open borders policies are killing people!
Nope. Be ready to live your convictions (and actions) in public view. Also fuck people who still wear face masks to "protests".
And maybe it's time to return to open ballots, like during the early decades of the USA.
What it’s time for is the extermination of the Marxist movement in this country.
Seems kinda superfluous. It's not like most of these people are hiding anything.
The folks donating to Planned Abortion Mill proudly announce it on Instagram. The folks donating to Black Lives Riot videotape their violent and destructive escapades and post it to youtube (and GoFundMe). The folks donating to LGBT Pedo spend this entire month making sure LITERALLY EVERYONE knows what sicko pedophiles they all are. The pro-Palestine terrorists are marginally the only ones with the occasional sense to hide behind a mask, but even then it's not usually hard to suss them out. The white hit-the-wall 40+ winebox karen catladies will tell anyone they can corner for ten seconds everything nobody ever wanted to know about them.
Leftist losers are pathologically compelled to share their L's.
If anything, this seems more beneficial to the normies who don't feel compelled to overshare their psychotic behavior to anyone who might give them a click. Ain't like the Islamic sleeper cells are out there blasting "Can't wait to take my flamethrower and molotovs to the Jewish gathering tomorrow!" on TikTok.
You use 'marginally' and 'seems' (twice) .
It's not like most of these people are hiding anything. <====
And I suppose to Hell with the others, right.
I can't say you are a principled person.
Did you read it or not ?
How Kamala Harris Earned Rebukes from ACLU and SCOTUS on Privacy
'The Breaches of Confidentiality Here Were Massive'
By Jerry Rogers
August 22, 2024
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/08/22/how_kamala_harris_earned_rebukes_from_aclu_and_scotus_on_privacy_1053395.html
THIS IS VIOLENT HATEFUL STUFF FROM STUPID KAMALA
Memo: Kamala already lost the election.
Show us on the doll where Harris touched you, bye.
Who was the one renob that opposed?