Assembly committee hears bill to keep nonprofit donor, member and volunteer lists confidential from government

Assembly members heard testimony on Assembly Bill 197, a bipartisan privacy bill that would require governmental agencies to keep donor, member and volunteer information for 501(c) nonprofit organizations confidential except in specified, enumerated circumstances.

Assemblywoman Shay Backus, sponsor of AB 197, told the committee the bill “would require government entities to keep 5 0 1 c nonprofit information confidential, including donor, member, and volunteer data, except information which is already required by law to be made public.” She said the measure was crafted with stakeholder input and that it does not change existing campaign finance or other statutory disclosure requirements.

AB 197 would add new confidentiality protections to the public-records chapter by making personal information that identifies a person as a donor, member, or volunteer of a nonprofit confidential subject to exceptions listed in the bill. The bill also would prohibit a governmental agency from requiring a nonprofit or individual to provide such lists, from releasing those lists publicly, or from conditioning contracts or grants on disclosure, except in a set of allowable situations (such as disclosures required by other statutes or ethics and licensing checks).

The measure sets civil remedies for violations. Under the draft described to the committee, an individual harmed by an improper disclosure may seek injunctive relief, recover costs and attorney fees, and obtain damages of at least $1,000 for a first violation, $5,000 for a second, and $10,000 for a third, with potential treble damages if the court finds a reckless or intentional violation. As Backus told the panel, “The proactive privacy protections in AB 197 are intended to prohibit rogue office holders and agencies from operating outside their legal jurisdiction and weaponizing the powers of the office against people or organizations they may otherwise dislike.” The bill requires a plaintiff to show actual harm to prevail.

Supporters from a broad ideological spectrum testified in favor, including civil-rights, labor and faith-affiliated groups, and public-service organizations. Ryan Leonard of Southwest Gas said the company’s employees donate through payroll deductions and that AB 197 would protect employee information; the ACLU of Nevada and Planned Parenthood testified in support; national and state conservative organizations including Americans for Prosperity and the LIBRE Initiative also voiced backing. Jessica Munger of Silver State Equality said the bill “puts into place appropriate guardrails to protect nonprofits from that type of harassment and intimidation.” Several witnesses described instances where staff or volunteers faced threats or doxxing after affiliation information was disclosed.

Local governments raised concerns about the bill’s breadth and the civil-penalty standard. David Cherry, government affairs manager for the City of Henderson, said the draft presented a “catch 22” because a public entity risks litigation if it withholds a record or if it discloses one: “As proposed, AB 1 97 presents a catch 22, whereby a public entity risk costly litigation if it withholds specific information or it discloses the same information,” Cherry testified, and he asked for a higher threshold for liability such as willful conduct or gross negligence consistent with other public-records penalties in NRS 239. County and city representatives also said definitions of “personal information” and the compliance burden could be made clearer. Clark County’s representative said an accepted conceptual amendment resolved many county concerns and that Clark was neutral under the amendment.

Sponsors and stakeholder representatives told the committee the bill contains numerous exceptions for contract review, licensing, ethics inquiries and statutorily required disclosures, and that prior-session language was refined in response to municipal feedback. Martin Fitzgerald, representing an advocacy group working on the bill, said the measure does not affect campaign-finance disclosures required by chapter 294A of NRS and that federal law constrains what a state can change about certain entities’ disclosure requirements.

The hearing included public testimony from dozens of nonprofit and civic organizations supporting the bill, and from municipal officials seeking further clarifications or a higher negligence standard for penalties. The committee did not vote at the hearing; sponsors said they will continue negotiations and update the committee manager with conceptual amendments.