Dorman is wrong on nonprofit donations

Todd Dorman’s recent column hastily dismisses donor privacy concerns, implying that the constitutional arguments against nonprofit donor disclosure are merely a pretense that allows a conservative “posse” to hide their political views and weaken “democracy.”

He references my organization, the Institute for Free Speech, and our support for such arguments. He uses a vague “protecting democracy” rationale to justify why supporters of 501(c)(3) nonprofits should have their donations made public. In Dorman’s own words:

“Conservatives, especially, want to keep donations confidential. That way, when they donate to efforts outlawing abortion rights, targeting transgender Americans or boosting Donald Trump the fat fraidy cats won’t get ‘canceled.’”

Dorman here proves our point.

We believe that Americans of any political stripe have a constitutional right to free speech, free association, and, crucially, anonymous speech and association.

Why? Because people might relish the opportunity to harass or punish fellow Americans for holding the “wrong” views — whether those Americans support or oppose abortion rights, support or oppose Donald Trump (or any politician), or support or oppose any other political idea.

Dorman essentially calls privacy-minded donors cowards (“fraidy”), but I wonder if he would have used similar adjectives to criticize members of the NAACP in Alabama in the 1950s and early 60s. There, the civil rights organization had to win four U.S. Supreme Court cases just to open an office.

In the first of those cases, the Alabama Attorney General sought access to the NAACP’s private membership list in what everyone recognized as an effort to intimidate the organization’s members and drive it out of the state.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court upheld the NAACP’s privacy rights and those of its members in NAACP v. Alabama, spawning a line of cases that still helps protect Americans’ free speech and associational privacy today. The Court recognized that compelled disclosure creates an “inevitable” chilling effect on free association — a principle that protects Americans regardless of ideology.

And the need to defend these rights isn’t confined to the Civil Rights Era. Much more recently, the Supreme Court in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta struck down California’s requirement that nonprofits disclose major donors, finding it created “an unnecessary risk of chilling in violation of the First Amendment.” The Court highlighted the “real and pervasive” deterrent effect when government demands donor information, even without public disclosure.

Likewise, our current federal case on behalf of the Buckeye Institute highlights the persistent threat of unconstitutional, sweeping disclosure mandates. Privacy rights aren't about hiding — they're about preventing the weaponization of political participation, and the principle at stake transcends partisan divides. There’s no better evidence of that than the broad, cross-ideological coalition of organizations that signed on to an amicus brief supporting our position in the Buckeye case.

Organized by the Nonprofit Alliance Foundation, this coalition included PETA, American Atheists, the Midwest Innocence Project, Feeding America, and the National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund. Not exactly a conservative posse.

But the coalition also included the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Students for Life, Special Olympics International, ASPCA Los Angeles, and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, among many others.

This wide swath of ideological and nonideological groups supporting donor privacy and political speech rights demonstrates conclusively that this isn’t just a “conservative” issue.

Those currently cheering disclosure may find themselves targeted when political winds shift. Today's majority can easily become tomorrow’s minority.

We’ll continue defending associational privacy for all Americans — not because they’re “fraidy cats,” but because democratic participation requires protection from those who seem eager to punish political disagreement. The Constitution doesn’t require citizens to accept harassment as the price of civic engagement.

David Keating is president of the Institute for Free Speech.