- A Senate bill would guard nonprofit donor identities, an effort that started with the NAACP during civil rights.
- The state legislature passed a similar bill in 2021, but it was vetoed by former Gov. Roy Cooper.
State lawmakers are considering a bill that would keep charitable donors’ personal information private. On Tuesday, the Senate judiciary committee voted to advance the Personal Privacy Protection Act sponsored by state Sens. Warren Daniel, R-Burke; Ralph Hise, R-Mitchell; and Tim Moffitt, R-Henderson.
The measure, Senate Bill 614, prohibits the government from collecting or disclosing the personal information about members, volunteers, and donors to 501(c) nonprofit organizations, and allows victims of disclosure to sue. The bill also makes it a misdemeanor to disclose the private information of a non-profit, punishable with up to 90 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.
The North Carolina General Assembly passed a similar measure in 2021, but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Roy Cooper. Cooper claimed that it would shield political “dark money” from public disclosure. However, neither that bill nor SB 614, change the reporting requirements of political campaigns, including campaign finance disclosure laws.
Bill sponsors say the measure is designed to protect the privacy and speech rights of donors who make contributions to charity in either money or goods. The impact of nonprofit organizations on North Carolina’s economy is close to $510 billion in revenue, with North Carolinians contributing to a wide variety of groups, including the arts, religious groups, volunteer medical providers, youth programs, and social movements.
“The Personal Privacy Protection Act defends a fundamental freedom—the right to give, volunteer, and belong without fear or exposure,” said Donald Bryson, CEO of the John Locke Foundation. “This legislation isn’t about right or left—it’s about protecting private citizens from public overreach.”
US Supreme Court protects donor confidentiality
In 2021, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Americans for Prosperity and Thomas More Law Center against the California attorney general’s office, which attempted to force the disclosure of charitable groups’ donor list. The case dates back to when former Vice President Kamala Harris was California’s attorney general and tried to require 501 organizations to file an unredacted “Schedule B” in their taxes, which would have revealed the identities of any donor giving $5,000 or more to their nonprofit group.
On July 1, 2021, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of AFP and other non-profits saying that the First Amendment protects collective action for “preserving political and cultural diversity” and that “[m]ere administrative convenience” is not enough to restrict their First Amendment freedoms.
Civil rights movement and privacy
The debate over donor privacy goes back to the 1950s. During the earliest days of the civil rights era, states’ attorneys general wanted the donor list of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People chapters. As civil rights protests gained steam and donations, some states used new donation disclosure laws to root out financial support for the movement. North Carolina was one of the states to demand that the NAACP reveal its donors.
The NAACP says it lost more than half of its membership between 1955 and 1957. In 1958, the NAACP’s Alabama chapter sued the state, arguing that the state-level demands violated their right to freedom of association under the First and 14th Amendments. Ultimately, in 1958, the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously in NAACP v. Alabama that the state’s demand was unconstitutional. The decision became a cornerstone of the argument that anonymous charitable donations of money or other resources are protected under the First Amendment.
“It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute [an] effective restraint on freedom of association… Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association,” the decision read.
This year’s Personal Privacy Protection Act now goes to the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate for consideration.