NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Lawmakers in at least three states, including Tennessee, have introduced bills that would bar public agencies from publicly disclosing information about nonprofit donors, and experts say donor disclosure issues remain under-the-radar but could have major implications.

Jerrick Adams, a staff writer for Ballotpedia who tracks the issue, said the Senate and House bills would ban state and local governments from disclosing any information it might have about donors.

He noted supporters of this type of legislation argued it's important to have safeguards protecting anonymity for charitable donations.

"On the other side of the equation is the argument that because a lot of these nonprofits and charitable groups participate indirectly in political activities, because they're involved to that extent in the political process, voters have a right to know who is bankrolling those initiatives," Adams explained.

Iowa and Nebraska are considering similar bills this year.

Adams pointed out unlike traditional donations to political parties or candidates, issue advocacy spending by nonprofit organizations and even corporations is far less regulated.

"There's a case pending before the Supreme Court, actually, surrounding a law in California which requires nonprofits that operate in the state to submit to the Secretary of State information about their donors," Adams observed. "And so legislation like this is certainly spurred, at least to a certain extent, by that litigation activity."

Supporters of donor privacy legislation argued a "chilling effect" can occur and hurt individuals in communities when donor information becomes public.

Adams added it happened in the 1950s to people who donated to the Alabama NAACP, in a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"That was a real cause of concern for folks donating to the NAACP in the South at that particular time," Adams recounted. "It's certainly not an unreasonable argument to make. Now, to what extent can you map out that chilling effect? That's a difficult question to question."

Last year the U.S. Treasury released final rules on donor disclosure requirements that allow many nonprofits, except 501(c)3 charities and certain political organizations, to leave out the names of significant donors on their tax returns.


get more stories like this via email

A handful of Montana bills pushing for partisan judicial elections as part of a broader movement in the state were defeated this month.

Montana law has required judicial elections to be nonpartisan for 90 years, since 1935. Proponents argued partisan elections would be more transparent. Opponents said it is one move in a larger effort to curb judicial power.

Jim Manley was a district court judge in Lake and Sanders Counties until he retired in 2022. He said it is vital judges be respected for their independence.

"Destroying that independence and respect has far-reaching negative effects," Manley contended. "I don't know if some of these politicians don't care about that. But that's the concern among judges and many other people."

He argued electing partisan judges would imply bias in courtrooms and decisions. He noted it could increase electoral spending, which has already skyrocketed in recent years. The Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform, created last year, brought 27 such bills to the current session. Only one has passed so far.

Interest groups have targeted judicial elections because of the hot-button issues they sometimes have to decide. Abortion and the environment are examples.

"You can't just take that authority away from the judicial branch to discipline judges or to determine what they can do," Manley stressed.

The effort to curb judicial power is unpopular. Only 20% of Montanans surveyed earlier this year said courts have too much authority.

Montana's new Supreme Court Chief Justice Cory Swanson, who has a conservative background, urged lawmakers in his 2025 State of the Judiciary address to keep elections nonpartisan and, quote, "reject legislation that will undermine the effective functioning of the judiciary." He said, "It will ultimately harm Montana citizens."


get more stories like this via email

Political maneuvers continue with the pivotal Wisconsin Supreme Court race less than a week away - the latest coming from the White House. In the weeks leading up to the April 1st election, the state has seen partisan-backed campaigns, swirling misinformation and incentives that border on bribes. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reshape state elections - with changes like proof of citizenship requirements - days before Wisconsin voters take to the polls.

Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs with Stand Up America, says it all reflects the climate stoked by the country's leaders.

"So, it's no surprise that they're trying that playbook again in Wisconsin," he explained. "And what it still comes down to is a really basic question. Do we want a MAGA court in Wisconsin? Do we want a Supreme Court bought and paid for by Elon Musk?"

Groups tied to Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who is overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency, have poured about $17 million into backing candidate Brad Schimel, while Susan Crawford's campaign reports a total $24 million in funding, with notable contributions from billionaire George Soros. Overall spending has surpassed all records for judicial races and is expected to reach $100 million.

Most state elections don't garner mass attention, but Edkins says in the battleground swing state, outcomes have national implications.

"Where Wisconsin goes, so goes the country. What's at stake in Wisconsin are ensuring that we have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028," he added.

The high court has become the referee for some of the most hotly debated election rules, narrowly rejecting then-presidential candidate Donald Trump's lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election results. And last year the court reversed gerrymandered maps and restored ballot drop boxes.

Lucy Ripp, communication director with A Better Wisconsin Together, says voters need to cut through the chaos and remember why the election matters.

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court exists to uphold and protect our constitutional rights and freedoms in Wisconsin. And so, it's really important that we pay attention to who we are electing to the court," she said.

Cases about abortion access, the rights of voters with disabilities, noncitizen voting and the legality of drop boxes are just some the high court could see - as well as a lawsuit concerning one of Musk's companies, Tesla.

After Elon Musk, a man once worth $327 billion, spent a quarter billion to elect Donald Trump, he was rewarded with unprecedented powers over the federal government.

Brandon Novick, policy coordinator with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says blatant corruption in the United States is not new. And it's legal, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Buckley versus Valeo ruling in 1976.

"That decision was the root one that said that 'money is speech' and that people can infinitely spend in elections. In Citizen's United, basically the court said based on this, we're saying corporations, not just individuals, can infinitely spend in elections," he explained.

To avoid the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, Novick said the nation's highest court clarified that unlimited spending to influence the outcome of an election is OK, so long as the cash is spent independently and not in coordination with a candidate's official campaign.

Billionaires are not just buying power from Republicans. Novick pointed to Reid Hoffman, who spent some $17 million on the Kamala Harris campaign. When Hoffman called for the Federal Trade Commission's chair Lena Kahn to get the boot, Harris refused to commit to keeping Kahn in her post.

"This issue is bipartisan. The establishments of both parties are not working to solve it. But the current Trump administration is the greatest example of blatant billionaire control bought through bribes in campaign spending," Novik said.

Good-government groups have long argued that in American democracy, one citizen - not one dollar - should equal one vote. Novick said there are only two viable pathways to get money out of politics. The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn previous decisions, which is unlikely since many of today's Justices were involved in Citizen's United.

"The only other way to get past this is a constitutional amendment to overturn their decision and get money out of politics. Because if Congress just passes a law, they'll strike it down," he added.


get more stories like this via email