Prohibits the disclosure of information regarding the membership of, volunteers of, or donors to a nonprofit organization (OR SEE FISC NOTE GF EX)
The bill substantially amends existing public records laws by adding provisions that firmly classify personal information relating to nonprofit organizations as confidential. Under HB 303, public bodies cannot compel the release of this data, nor can they require contractors to disclose their support for various nonprofits. This staggered level of protection aims to limit the exposure of nonprofits to potential scrutiny and to foster a more supportive environment for charitable activities in the state.
House Bill 303, also known as the Personal Privacy Protection Act, aims to enhance the confidentiality of personal information related to nonprofit organizations that are tax-exempt under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. The bill specifically prohibits public bodies from requiring or disclosing personal information of the members, supporters, volunteers, or donors associated with such nonprofits. It establishes a framework designed to protect nonprofit-associated individuals from unwanted disclosures, thereby enhancing the privacy rights of those involved with these organizations.
The sentiment surrounding HB 303 appears to be generally positive, particularly among advocates for nonprofit organizations and community supporters who value privacy protections. Proponents argue that the bill is essential for safeguarding the anonymity and personal details of individuals involved with nonprofits, thereby encouraging philanthropic activities. However, there may be concerns among transparency advocates regarding the balance between privacy and the need for public accountability, especially in the context of financial contributions to charities.
Notable points of contention may arise around the exceptions provided in the bill. While HB 303 establishes robust protections for personal information, it does also include provisions that allow for disclosures under specific circumstances, such as legal warrants or compelling evidence of need in court cases. Critics might argue that these exceptions could undermine the bill’s intent by leaving room for interpretation and potential misuse, indicating an ongoing debate regarding the essential balance between privacy rights and public accountability.