The Liberty Justice Center represents the Rio Grande Foundation in a constitutional challenge to New Mexico’s donor-disclosure regime, which requires nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations engaged in issue advocacy to report their donors to the government and have those identities publicly posted on a state website.
Under New Mexico’s law, nonprofits that speak about public issues—especially when referencing public officials or candidates near elections—can trigger disclosure mandates even if they do not expressly advocate for or against any candidate. This sweeping regime captures policy analysis, educational outreach, and grassroots mobilization at the very moments when public engagement is most vital, compelling public exposure of supporters who simply wish to back issue-focused advocacy.
Despite longstanding First Amendment protections for privacy in association, New Mexico’s disclosure rules chill speech and participation by exposing donors to potential harassment, economic retaliation, and social stigma. The law is overbroad and not narrowly tailored: it targets issue advocacy that does not implicate quid pro quo corruption concerns associated with campaign finance, and it effectively “names and shames” supporters on a public government list, deterring charitable giving and civic involvement.
On December 13, 2019, the Rio Grande Foundation filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico (Santa Fe Division) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that New Mexico’s donor-disclosure mandates violate the First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The case proceeded through extensive district court briefing and rulings, followed by appellate proceedings with briefing in 2022–2024 and a subsequent court opinion in 2025, reflecting a multi-year challenge to the constitutionality of compelled donor disclosure for issue advocacy.
Americans have a constitutional right to support causes they believe in without sacrificing their privacy. Governments cannot suppress civic participation by forcing public exposure of donors to issue-focused nonprofits. This case seeks to vindicate associational privacy and ensure that individuals can advocate for policy positions—across the ideological spectrum—without being placed on a public registry that chills speech and favors entrenched political interests.
Rio Grande Foundation v. Oliver was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on December 13, 2019.
Jeffrey M. Schwab serves as Senior Counsel and Director of Litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, where he litigates cases to protect the rights to free speech, economic liberty, private property and other Constitutional rights in both federal and state courts across the country.
Ryan joined the Liberty Justice Center as Senior Counsel in May 2025 to protect the right of free speech, defend the right to keep and bear arms, and stop government overreach.
Alex Baiocco | April 2, 2025 (United for Privacy) The New Mexico Legislature adjourned on March 22 with Senate Majority Floor Leader Peter Wirth’s (D) surreptitious attack on nonprofit donor privacy and issue advocacy left to die in committee. The Senate unanimously passed Wirth’s bill, S.B. 85, in mid-February, but...
Paul Gessing and Matt Nese | Mar 10, 2025 (Santa Fe New Mexican) Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, is again declaring war against free speech and privacy. Senate Bill 85, which recently passed the Senate, doubles down on a 2019 law that is already being challenged in federal...
(Santa Fe New Mexican)—Two conservative groups have sued New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver in federal court in an effort to hide the identities of donors who fund political issue advertisements. The Albuquerque-based Rio Grande Foundation and Illinois Opportunity Project argue that a new state law requiring stricter...
Dan McKay | Dec. 15, 2019 (Las Cruces Sun News) SANTA FE – Two nonprofit advocacy groups — including the Rio Grande Foundation — filed a lawsuit Friday challenging a new state law that requires more disclosure of dark-money political spending. The disclosure requirements, they argue, violate their donors’ First...
No results found right now, please visit our newsroom.