{"id":2621382,"date":"2026-06-30T08:59:57","date_gmt":"2026-06-30T12:59:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/new-mexico-says-civil-liberties-group-can-only-enjoy-free-speech-if-it-doxxes-donors\/"},"modified":"2026-06-30T09:06:07","modified_gmt":"2026-06-30T13:06:07","slug":"new-mexico-says-civil-liberties-group-can-only-enjoy-free-speech-if-it-doxxes-donors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/new-mexico-says-civil-liberties-group-can-only-enjoy-free-speech-if-it-doxxes-donors\/","title":{"rendered":"New Mexico Says To Enjoy Free Speech, Group Must Dox Donors\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fnew-mexico-says-civil-liberties-group-can-only-enjoy-free-speech-if-it-doxxes-donors%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2621382&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>An association called the Rio Grande Foundation planned to mail a voting scorecard to New Mexico voters ahead of the 2024 elections. The scorecard, which provided voter information and candidate data, was classified as an &#8220;independent expenditure&#8221; under state law because it mentioned candidates and was scheduled to be sent within 60 days of the election. This classification would have required the foundation to disclose its donors, including those who contributed more than $5,000 in a two-year cycle, revealing their identities publicly. <\/p>\n<p>The foundation argues that the scorecard was simply civic information, protected by the First Amendment, and did not advocate for any particular vote. they contend that New Mexico\u2019s law, which forces donor disclosure and treats basic civic materials as campaign advocacy, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/twitter-suing-texas-ag-over-probe-into-trump-ban-company-cites-first-amendment-rights\/\" title=\"Twitter Suing Texas AG Over Probe Into Trump Ban, Company Cites \u2018First ... Rights\u2019\">chills free speech<\/a> and association. Historically, forced donor disclosure has been associated with retaliation and harassment, as seen in cases involving the NAACP, California\u2019s Proposition 8 donors, and individuals like mozilla\u2019s co-founder. <\/p>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >case raises constitutional questions<\/a> about whether laws that compel political donor disclosure should be subject to strict scrutiny, given the First Amendment\u2019s protection of anonymity and association. The authors emphasize that anonymity shields individuals from retaliation and allows for free expression, citing the Founders\u2019 use of pseudonyms and Supreme Court rulings. They call for the Supreme Court to clarify the standard of review for such laws, ensuring higher protection for political association and free speech rights.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Leading up to the 2024 election, an organization called the Rio Grande Foundation\u00a0planned to mail\u00a0its <a href=\"https:\/\/legislativescorecard.us\/case-studies\/rio-grande-foundation\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">legislative scorecard to New Mexico voters.<\/a> Mailing the scorecard would allow the organization to reach across a statewide audience to better inform and update them on upcoming changes in legislation. But New Mexico state law prohibited the organization from doing so. Now the foundation is asking the Supreme Court to review the law in a case called <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca10\/24-2070\/24-2070-2025-09-09.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Rio Grande Foundation v. Oliver.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<p>The scorecard did not urge New Mexicans to vote in a particular way. But, because it named candidates and was scheduled to be sent within 60 days of the election, New Mexico\u2019s Campaign Reporting Act classified it as an \u201cindependent expenditure\u201d that would have forced the\u00a0Rio Grande Foundation to disclose its donors to the government. <\/p>\n<p>Any organization spending more than $1,000 on communications that merely <em>reference <\/em>a candidate or ballot measure within a specified <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/gonzales-under-inquiry-over-alleged-affair-with-staffer-who-set-herself-on-fire\/\" title=\"Gonzales under inquiry over alleged affair with staffer who set herself on fire\">pre-election window<\/a> are red flagged under New Mexico law. To send such communications, an organization must disclose donors who contributed more than $5,000 during a two-year election cycle, unless the donor explicitly opts out. The problem is, most donors have no idea that such a requirement exists. A $5,000 donation to a nonprofit organization that publishes voting records is hardly identical to a campaign contribution or an endorsement of any candidate, yet the state treats them the same.<\/p>\n<p>Rio Grande\u2019s scorecard was a voting record \u2014 the kind of basic civic information that newspapers publish and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/republicans-cant-afford-to-surrender-the-nonprofit-voter-registration-game-to-democrats\/\" title=\"Republicans must not concede the nonprofit voter registration arena to Democrats.\">good-government groups<\/a> have distributed for generations. Whether it qualifies as \u201cadvocacy\u201d under New Mexico\u2019s definitions is beside the point. The First Amendment protects the right to associate and speak anonymously, and that right does not evaporate the moment a communication mentions a candidate\u2019s name.<\/p>\n<p>The chilling effect of <a href=\"https:\/\/advancingamericanfreedom.com\/aaf-stands-with-babylon-bee-against-california-censorship\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">forced donor disclosure<\/a> is not hypothetical. As the Supreme Court found in the civil rights-era case <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/357\/449\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>NAACP v. Alabama<\/em><\/a><em> <\/em>(1958)<em>,<\/em> Alabama could not compel the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to disclose its membership lists, as doing so would expose them to retaliation. <\/p>\n<p>In our\u00a0politically charged\u00a0present, the Supreme Court recognized as much in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/cases\/americans-for-prosperity-foundation-v-becerra\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta<\/em><\/a> (2021), where hundreds of organizations filed briefs attesting to the real, pervasive deterrence to free association and expression that forced disclosure creates. For example, in 2008, donors to <a href=\"https:\/\/ballotpedia.org\/California_Proposition_8,_Same-Sex_Marriage_Ban_Initiative_(2008)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">California\u2019s Proposition 8<\/a>, a ballot measure on marriage, faced <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2009\/01\/19\/us\/19prop8.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">coordinated harassment campaigns after their names became public<\/a>. This included the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/film\/2008\/nov\/26\/gay-rights-lafilmfestival-proposition8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">resignation of film and theatrical directors<\/a>, and <a href=\"https:\/\/abc7ny.com\/archive\/6472609\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">vandalism of homes<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Years later, in 2014, the co-founder of Mozilla was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/technology\/2014\/apr\/03\/mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-resigns-prop-8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">forced out<\/a> of his own company because his donation to the proposition\u00a0resurfaced. The donation was legal, and the proposition even passed a statewide ballot, but public disclosure turned the donor into a victim of cancel culture because leftists disagreed with his politics. <\/p>\n<p>This is exactly what the Founders understood when they wrote anonymously.\u00a0The Federalist Papers were published pseudonymously, as were the Anti-Federalists\u2019\u00a0responses. As the Supreme Court held in <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/514\/334\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission<\/em><\/a>, \u201c\u201canonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.\u201d It \u201cexemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights\u2026to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation\u2014and their ideas from suppression\u2014at the hand of an intolerant society.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/23559183\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">John Stuart Mill\u2019s marketplace of ideas<\/a> presents the belief\u00a0that arguments should be evaluated on their merits, not according to the identity of the speaker. When the government compels donor disclosure, it inverts that principle, licensing voters to dismiss an argument because of its source rather than its substance. <\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court should use <em>Rio Grande<\/em> to resolve whether laws that compel disclosure of political association should face strict scrutiny \u2013 the highest test in constitutional law \u2013 not merely exacting scrutiny. The court\u2019s own precedents in <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/357\/449\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>NAACP v. Alabama<\/em><\/a> called for \u201cthe closest scrutiny\u201d of any state action curtailing freedom of association, yet the cases that followed have applied something less. <\/p>\n<p>The gap matters because\u00a0 \u201cexacting scrutiny\u201d has proven porous in practice. When the Ninth Circuit upheld California\u2019s donor disclosure regime under this same standard, the Supreme Court reversed it in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/cases\/americans-for-prosperity-foundation-v-becerra\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Americans for Prosperity Foundation<\/em><\/a>. This correction required higher intervention precisely because the lower court\u2019s application of exacting scrutiny wasn\u2019t exacting at all. The Tenth Circuit upheld this law, and courts will continue upholding similar laws until the Court clarifies the standard. <\/p>\n<p>Rio Grande sought to publish a voting record that voters in New Mexico had a right to see. Rio Grande\u2019s donors likewise had a right to support it without having their names and addresses delivered to the state and published for anyone to find. New Mexico\u2019\u2019s law makes all three of those things harder, and the Supreme Court should say so.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      J. Marc Wheat is General Counsel at Advancing American Freedom. Mitchell Bahnsen is a summer intern at Advancing American Freedom.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>NM law blocks Rio Grande Foundation&#8217;s election scorecard<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4340,"featured_media":2621383,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-CORRECT-Twitter-template-1-32.png","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546,33651],"tags":[81961,33332,32311,34818],"class_list":["post-2621382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist","category-the-western-journal","tag-donor-transparency","tag-first-amendment","tag-free-speech","tag-new-mexico"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-Copy-of-CORRECT-Twitter-template-1-32.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2621382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4340"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2621382"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2621382\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2621386,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2621382\/revisions\/2621386"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2621383"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2621382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2621382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2621382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}