Brief Urges the Supreme Court to Take Case and Protect Donor Privacy – Foundation
Brief Urges the Supreme Court to Take Case and Protect Donor Privacy – Foundation
Publish Date: 2026-06-04 13:05:00
Source Domain: www.ntu.org
There is tension in the law between robust protections for speech, particularly speech about issues of public import, and the ever-increasing donor disclosure demands under campaign finance laws. NTUF’s Taxpayer Defense Center, joined by People United For Privacy, filed an amici curiae (“friends of the court”) brief to urge the Supreme Court to take the Rio Grande Foundation’s challenge to New Mexico’s burdensome and dangerous donor disclosure laws.
New Mexico treats speech about ballot issues the same as speech about political candidates. A group merely speaking about a ballot issue close-in-time to the election would have to register as a political committee. Such registration triggers burdensome disclosure requirements, including the source of funding for the nonprofit. The Rio Grande Foundation challenged that law, since Rio Grande runs a ballot guide discussing the votes of state lawmakers. Under New Mexico law, the Foundation’s donors would have to be disclosed if it produced that ballot guide, exposing its supporters to opportunities for threats, harassment, and political retaliation. But the Tenth Circuit upheld New Mexico’s law against the Rio Grande Foundation’s planned ballot guide.
Ballot guides are important tools used by nonprofits nationwide to educate the public about issues. NTU, for example, often issues ballot guides. These are comprehensive, sometimes going into the hundreds of pages. NTU has been doing these guides for decades. The ballot guides could not be confused with a campaign ad. Instead, they’re informational and help people understand more about a complex topic.
In our brief, we tell the Court that the New Mexico law was upheld on shaky ground. Indeed, of the three judges on the panel, the decision was really 1-1-1 between a majority opinion, a concurrence that functions as a dubitante opinion (meaning the judge thinks the law compels an answer they think is wrong but cannot…
