Constraining Civic Life: State Bills Target Nonprofits Nationwide

Ice and snow still blanket much of the country, but in state legislatures, nonprofits are feeling the heat. At Bolder Advocacy, we are tracking close to 1,000 bills filed this legislative season that could affect tax-exempt organizations and the communities they serve. Many of these proposals are designed to limit how nonprofits speak, organize, fundraise, and participate in civic life.

In the voter assistance realm alone, dozens of states are considering bills that would make it harder for community groups to help people register to vote and cast a ballot. In Kansas, HB 2438 would prohibit online voter registration unless a website uses a .gov domain or is explicitly approved by the secretary of state. The practical effect would be to shut out third-party registration efforts, undermining the historic role nonprofits have played in expanding access to the ballot and consolidating control over voter assistance in the hands of elected officials.

Arizona lawmakers have gone even further. HCR 2001 and SCR 1001 are sweeping proposals that would dismantle the state’s unique active early voting list that allows voters to automatically receive their ballot by mail. The measures would also require proof of citizenship to vote by mail, and restrict the use of voting centers. These measures are structured to bypass the governor entirely and go directly to voters, which appears to be an effort to sidestep a likely veto. The house version has already passed.

The Arizona proposals also include provisions prohibiting foreign nationals from contributing to ballot measure campaigns. While federal law already bans foreign national contributions to candidate campaigns, these bills seek to extend those restrictions to ballot measures, significantly narrowing the funding landscape for direct democracy efforts.

Arizona’s approach to ballot measure reform reflects a broader national trend. In 2025, at least nineteen states considered so-called foreign influence bills, with nine enacting them into law. So far in the 2026 legislative session, thirty-nine such bills have been introduced across twenty states. Some focus narrowly on majority foreign-owned businesses, but many target individuals and ballot question committees. These bills often require affirmative certifications that no foreign national funding is involved in an organization’s ballot measure advocacy, introducing new compliance burdens and legal risk, particularly for nonprofits engaged in complex or coalition-based advocacy.

The language of foreign influence bills varies widely. Some attempt to emulate the federal Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, enacted in 1938 to address Nazi propaganda in the United States. Today, however, FARA has increasingly been used against advocacy organizations and political movements. State-level “baby FARA” bills may require nonprofits that receive funding from abroad to register with the state and report on their activities. Often drafted broadly, these laws can sweep in global philanthropy and routine international partnerships. In 2025, Arkansas, Florida, and Nebraska enacted versions of this framework. In 2026, baby FARA legislation has already been introduced in at least four states, and Indiana’s SB 256 has already passed the senate.

These efforts mirror another expanding legislative push, donor disclosure mandates. Currently, at least thirty bills across eleven states would require nonprofits to disclose additional donor information beyond existing law. Although framed as transparency measures, these proposals frequently chill speech, raise compliance costs, and discourage public-facing advocacy. In some cases, compelled disclosure can expose donors to harassment, retaliation, or political targeting; eroding, rather than protecting, First Amendment freedoms.

Another notable development is the rise of bills that would prohibit all artificial persons, including nonprofit and for-profit corporations, from engaging in advocacy intended to influence elections, including ballot measures. Proposals such as Hawaii’s SB 2471, Iowa’s SJR 2004, and Missouri’s HJR 160 are emerging from both parties and raise serious constitutional concerns.

Maryland’s HB 0154 is narrower but is part of the same broader trend of expanding state regulation of nonprofit political activity. The bill applies exclusively to charitable organizations and would create a state-level backstop to the federal Johnson Amendment, with new civil penalties and state tax-exemption revocation authority for participation in candidate campaigns. While curbing the influence of large corporate spending may be a laudable goal, measures that expand restrictions on nonprofit advocacy risk undermining critical civic infrastructure and weakening voter engagement.

Taken together, these bills reflect a coordinated effort to narrow who can participate in civic life, who can fund advocacy, and which organizations can safely engage. For nonprofits, the message is unmistakable. The legal terrain is shifting, and the stakes for compliance and resistance are rising.

This moment demands more than awareness. As states advance legislation reshaping the rules around advocacy, fundraising, donor privacy, and civic engagement, nonprofits must understand the legal landscape and the risks these proposals create across their work. Knowing the rules is not about pulling back. It is about protecting the ability to organize, speak, and build power over the long term. In a rapidly changing state policy environment, legal compliance is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is core movement infrastructure.