{"id":15187457,"date":"2026-06-30T04:19:47","date_gmt":"2026-06-30T08:19:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-dark-money-law-allows-free-speech-challenge-to-proceed\/"},"modified":"2026-06-30T06:44:43","modified_gmt":"2026-06-30T10:44:43","slug":"arizona-supreme-court-upholds-dark-money-law-allows-free-speech-challenge-to-proceed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-dark-money-law-allows-free-speech-challenge-to-proceed\/","title":{"rendered":"Arizona Supreme Court upholds dark money law, allows free speech challenge to proceed"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/azmirror.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683.jpg\" class=\"attachment-large size-large wp-post-image\" alt=\"\" style=\"margin-bottom: 10px\" \/><figcaption>\n<p style=\"font-size:12px\">Photo by iStock \/ Getty Images Plus<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Arizona Supreme Court on Monday dismissed most of the challenges to a voter-approved anti-dark-money law, but allowed one of the challenges from deep-pocketed conservative opponents to move forward.\u00a0 The remaining challenge questions whether disclosing the identities of political donors creates a chilling effect that violates the state constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Since voters in 2022 overwhelmingly approved Proposition 211, the Voters Right to Know Act, proponents of the anonymous campaign spending that has transformed American elections over the past 15 years have challenged its constitutionality. The law\u2019s conservative opponents have argued that forcing disclosure of the source of political spending limits the free speech of wealthy people who want to influence voters, but don\u2019t want those voters to know who is trying to persuade them.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">On Monday, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/azmirror.com\/2025\/09\/11\/arizona-supreme-court-weighs-fate-of-voter-approved-dark-money-disclosure-law\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">months after hearing oral arguments<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled to dismiss a number of the challenges brought against the law, upholding the voter approved initiative. The court agreed to let live a challenge arguing that disclosing the identity of donors chilled free speech under Arizona\u2019s constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<aside>        <a href=\"https:\/\/azmirror.com\/subscribe\" style=\"text-decoration:none\" aria-label=\"Get the morning headlines delivered to your inbox.\"><\/p>\n<div class=\"subscribeShortcodeContainer\">\n<div class=\"subscribeTextContainer\">\n                <i class=\"fas fa-envelope\"><\/i><\/p>\n<p>GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"subscribeButtonContainer\">\n                <button>SUBSCRIBE<\/button>\n            <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>        <\/a><br \/>\n        <\/aside>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The state constitution\u2019s \u201c<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/constitution\/arizona\/2\/6.htm?__cf_chl_f_tk=.Z_FizLfqa6KAQAKVPIEIvOx_s06CcDWTnk1bFGefLI-1782766888-1.0.1.1-Tdap6vxgx9WrAgN6aeppTOkdkaLgLQzL12D.WbiRCjA\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Speak Freely Clause,<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201d which provides protections to Arizonans&#8217; freedom of speech and the press, was the main focus of the <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.goldwaterinstitute.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/CV240295PR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">4-3 opinion released Monday<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The legal challenges that the court considered were brought by the anti-abortion advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a dark money nonprofit. They were joined by two anonymous donors who said they feared harassment and violence if their political spending was disclosed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">They argued that mandating disclosure of the source of political spending violates the Arizona Constitution\u2019s protections of free speech, association, privacy and separation of powers. Lower courts have <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/azmirror.com\/briefs\/court-of-appeals-arizonas-law-requiring-disclosure-or-dark-money-is-constitutional\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">rejected arguments<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> that Prop. 211 chills free speech and said the law complies with the state constitution, including a <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.azcourts.gov\/Portals\/0\/OpinionFiles\/Div1\/2024\/CV%2024-0272%20Center%20for%20AZ%20Policies%20OP.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">unanimous decision<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> at the Arizona Court of Appeals.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Republican legislative leaders made similar arguments in their <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/azmirror.com\/briefs\/gop-bid-to-block-dark-money-disclosure-in-2024-fails\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">failed attempt<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> to overturn the ballot measure, which was broadly supported by Arizonans across all political ideologies and ultimately won the backing of more than 70% of voters.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Under federal tax law, neither the Arizona Free Enterprise Club nor the Center for Arizona Policy\u2019s political arm have to disclose donors. But under Prop. 211, they will be forced to do so for their election-related activities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The two groups campaigned against the passage of Prop. 211, claiming that it enshrined \u201ccancel culture\u201d into law. And the Center for Arizona Policy, which has a history of pushing anti-LGBTQ laws, said it feared the harassment it already received would be directed to its donors if they are revealed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Ann Timmer, noted that Arizona\u2019s constitution strongly favors protecting freedom of speech but also supports political campaign disclosures.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201c[T]he framers included a provision prohibiting corporations from making contributions \u2018for the purpose of influencing any election or official action,\u2019\u201d Timmer wrote. \u201cThe Speak Freely Clause therefore does not prevent the prohibition of corporate campaign contributions\u2026This is so despite the fact that the First Amendment prohibits such a restriction.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">While the U.S. Supreme Court deemed corporate campaign contributions protected speech under the infamous <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/our-work\/research-reports\/citizens-united-explained\" target=\"_blank\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Citizens United ruling<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, Timmer and the majority concluded that Arizona\u2019s constitution and its framers did not anticipate this and thus are not impacted by it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The majority also wrote that landmark cases argued under Arizona\u2019s Speak Freely Clause have focused more on \u201cprohibiting punishment for expression\u201d and did not address the chilling of speech.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">In one of those cases, the court determined that a City of Phoenix nondiscrimination ordinance could not force a Christian-owned company to <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/azmirror.com\/2019\/09\/16\/court-says-brush-and-nib-studio-doesnt-have-to-make-invitations-for-same-sex-weddings\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">create invitations for a same-sex couple<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The majority argued that the government has certain \u201cpolice-power\u201d rights over certain types of speech that were recognized by the authors of the Arizona Constitution, citing ordinances dating to 1910, prior to statehood. Those ordinances required residents to report contagious diseases, physicians to report births and deaths and poisons to be labeled.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201cThese enactments, existing before and at statehood, evidence Arizonans\u2019 understanding that the exercise of the State\u2019s police powers for health, safety, and welfare\u2014as illustrated\u2014did not conflict with Arizonans\u2019 right to speak \u201c\u2018freely,\u2019\u201d Timmer wrote.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">However, Timmer and the majority noted the clash between the Speak Freely Clause and Arizona\u2019s history of election spending transparency. Timmer wrote for the majority that donating to an organization for the \u201cexpress purpose of funding campaign media\u201d or knowing that it will be used for messaging is \u201cexpressive conduct protected by the Speak Freely Clause.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Spending that reflects the organization\u2019s messaging is also seen as \u201cexpressive conduct\u201d so both the Center for Arizona Police and the Free Enterprise Club have \u201cadequately alleged that expression protected by the Speak Freely Clause is at issue.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">But the state has a long history of favoring campaign disclosure, Timmer noted.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201c\u200b\u200bUsing disclosure requirements to advance integrity and transparency in election spending is deeply rooted in Arizona\u2019s history,\u201d Timmer wrote. \u201cOn the eve of statehood, territorial law already required candidates and political committees to file detailed public reports disclosing the sources and expenditures of campaign funds, both direct and indirect through intermediaries.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">She wrote that with both those things taken together that \u201cfree-speech protections do not shield campaign-related contributions, even those made through intermediaries, or contributor identities from reasonable publicity requirements.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Not all of the court agreed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201cWe concur with the majority\u2019s conclusion that Plaintiffs\u2019 as-applied challenge under the Speak Freely Clause should not have been dismissed,\u201d Justice Kathryn King wrote in the dissent. \u201cBut we depart from the majority in all other respects.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">King, along with Vice Chief Justice John Lopez IV and Justice Clint Bolick, argued that the majority\u2019s interpretation \u201ccreates a new limitation on free speech rights, permitting censorship and restraint on speech in \u2018the state\u2019s proper exercise of its regulatory authority.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201cMost fundamentally, this police power justification departs from clear constitutional text that limits the scope and exercise of legislative authority infringing on the right to speak freely to \u2018abuse of that right,\u2019\u201d King wrote. \u201c But this police power justification is also nebulous and sweeping, invites government suppression of speech, and is unprecedented.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Timmer and the majority argue that isn\u2019t the case and that electoral disclosures, restrictions on advertisements and other similar laws are all \u201cpolice-power regulation affecting expression\u201d that have never been deemed unconstitutional and do not impact one\u2019s ability to \u201cspeak freely.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The dissenting justices also took umbrage with the possibility of an \u201cindirect donor\u201d having their private information exposed due to a second or third organization triggering the Voters Right to Know Act. The justices provided two scenarios they said were plausible under the law.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">In one of them a woman\u00a0 \u201cdonates $5,100 to her church over the course of a year without designating her funds to be used in any way\u201d and then her church donates those funds to a \u201csocial justice organization.&#8221; That organization then donates the money to an immigrant relief organization that then purchases campaign advertisements against a ballot measure seeking to prohibit local law enforcement agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201cUnder the Act, the woman will be publicly identified as supporting \u2018anti-ICE\u2019 campaign media spending, even if she strongly supports ICE,\u201d King wrote.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The group gave another example involving a man who donates a total of $5,005 to a non-profit that, with his donation eventually going to an organization that funds a gun rights group, even though the person \u201cvehemently supports gun control and increased government restrictions on the purchase and use of guns.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201cAnd not only are their names reported as supporting ballot measures and messages they fundamentally oppose, but their addresses, occupations, and employers are publicly reported too,\u201d King wrote. \u201cThe notion that a citizen\u2014who anonymously donates a total of $5,001 over two years to an organization that later uses the donation to speak through media on a matter of public interest\u2014is a \u2018major donor\u2019 who represents a threat to our citizenry is contrary to the text and history of the Arizona Constitution.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Both groups of justices seem to agree that the opt-out option for donors who want to make sure their money is not used for campaign media is not entirely clear.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201cTo be sure, the Act does not answer every question about how its notice and tracing provisions operate in all circumstances,\u201d Timmer wrote.\u00a0 \u201cFor example, it does not expressly specify who must provide upstream donors notice of the opt-out opportunity or require a covered person to investigate whether an immediate donor\u2019s contribution includes original monies from upstream donors. We need not resolve those implementation questions here.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Both also seemed to agree that both the Center for Arizona Police and the Free Enterprise Club have faced possible threats to their speech.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">While both groups have \u201csufficiently alleged a concrete, non-speculative burden on protected expression\u201d it does not impact their ability to \u201cpublicly communicate messages\u201d as the act only impacts donations used for campaign media.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201cThey do allege, however, that the prospect of public identification under the Act will cause major donors to fear harassment and retaliation, deterring them from contributing sufficient money and resources needed for CAP and FEC to engage in campaign media related to their issue advocacy,\u201d Timmer wrote. \u201cAs a result, CAP and FEC allege that the Act \u2018chills\u2019 their speech by forcing them to curtail their campaign media messaging.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Center for Arizona Policy provided an example of receiving death threats as did the Free Enterprise Club, both citing their advocacy on controversial issues as a basis for the harassment.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The Goldwater Institute, which has been representing the two organizations, applauded Monday\u2019s opinion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u201cThis is an important victory for every Arizonan who believes people should be free to support the causes they care about without fear of government-compelled disclosure,\u201d Scott Freeman, senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute said in a statement. \u201cThe Arizona Supreme Court recognized that our state constitution independently protects free speech and that citizens are entitled to prove that compelled donor disclosure violates those protections.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The case will now head back to Maricopa County Superior Court where the Center for Arizona Police and Free Enterprise Club will be allowed to argue that the act is unconstitutional because it chills their clients&#8217; speech.<\/span><\/p>\n<aside>        <a href=\"https:\/\/azmirror.com\/donate\/?oa_referrer=midstorybox\" style=\"text-decoration:none\"><\/p>\n<div class=\"donateContainer\">\n<div class=\"donateTextContainer\">\n<p>YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"donateButtonContainer\">\n                <button>SUPPORT<\/button>\n            <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>        <\/a><br \/>\n        <\/aside>\n<p class=\"inmi-source\">Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/azmirror.com\/2026\/06\/29\/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-dark-money-law-allows-free-speech-challenge-to-proceed\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\">News \u2013 World \u2013 Phoenix \u2013 rss.app2 \u2192 manual entry<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Arizona Supreme Court on Monday dismissed most of the challenges to a voter-approved anti-dark-money law, but allowed one of the challenges from deep-pocketed conservative opponents to move forward.\u00a0 The remaining challenge questions whether disclosing the identities of political donors\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":15187459,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[136],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15187457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-phoenix"],"featured_image_urls":{"full":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1.jpg",1024,683,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-300x200.jpg",300,200,true],"medium":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-620x414.jpg",620,414,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-768x512.jpg",768,512,true],"large":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-940x627.jpg",940,627,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1.jpg",1024,683,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1.jpg",1024,683,false],"post-thumbnail":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-998x665.jpg",998,665,true],"ignition_item":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-670x446.jpg",670,446,true],"ignition_item_lg":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1.jpg",1024,683,false],"ignition_article_media":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-510x510.jpg",510,510,true],"ignition_minicart_item":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-160x160.jpg",160,160,true],"profile_24":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-24x24.jpg",24,24,true],"profile_48":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-48x48.jpg",48,48,true],"profile_96":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-96x96.jpg",96,96,true],"profile_150":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"profile_300":["https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/15187457-dark-money-getty-rf-1024x683-1-300x300.jpg",300,300,true]},"author_info":{"display_name":"news.iNthacity","author_link":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/author\/atombo\/"},"category_info":"<a href=\"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/articles\/news\/usa\/phoenix\/\" rel=\"category tag\">Phoenix<\/a>","tag_info":"Phoenix","comment_count":"0","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15187457","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15187457"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15187457\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15187458,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15187457\/revisions\/15187458"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15187459"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15187457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15187457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.inthacity.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15187457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}