Ben Dorr never expected that advocating for constitutional rights would endanger his pregnant wife.

As the executive director of both Minnesota Right to Life and Minnesota Gun Rights, Dorr has spent years mobilizing grassroots supporters across Minnesota to contact their legislators about issues that matter to them. It’s the kind of civic engagement that forms the backbone of American democracy—citizens engaging with one another about matters of public concern and encouraging them to make their voices heard.

In Minnesota, that kind of speech comes with a price. And for Dorr and his organizations, that price has become deeply personal.

When Advocacy Becomes a Target

The harassment started subtly. As Dorr’s organizations grew more effective at rallying supporters around pro-life and Second Amendment issues, opposition activists began paying closer attention. Both Minnesota Right to Life (MNRTL) and Minnesota Gun Rights (MGR) speak on controversial topics that prompt passionate debate. Sometimes, public discourse crosses the line into something much darker.

“People care deeply about these issues,” Dorr explains. “Vigorous debate comes with the territory. But what we’ve experienced goes far beyond reasonable civic engagement.”

The threats escalated quickly. Several years ago, an individual discovered Dorr’s office address and emailed him directly. The message was chilling in its specificity: the person confirmed the address was accurate and said he was going to kill Dorr. In another incident, someone posted Dorr’s home address on Facebook along with a comment about going to his house to “f*ck him up.” That post received over 150 “likes.”

The Facebook incident was particularly terrifying because of its timing. Dorr was out of state, and his wife—nine months pregnant—was home alone. Fearing for her safety, Dorr called the local police department and asked them to send an officer to check on the house and make sure no one showed up.

“That’s when it really hit me,” Dorr recalls. “These people weren’t just trying to shut down our organizations—they were willing to target my family.”

The Vendor Targeting Campaign

But the harassment didn’t stop with Dorr personally. Opponents soon discovered a more effective tactic: targeting the vendors that make MNRTL and MGR’s advocacy possible.

The strategy is devastating yet simple. Activists identify companies that provide services to organizations like Dorr’s—printing companies, mailing services, email platforms, fundraising management firms, and so on—and then launch pressure campaigns to force those vendors to cut off service. The goal is to make it so difficult and expensive for advocacy organizations to operate that they’ll simply stop speaking out, a classic tactic of chilling speech by using indirect pressure to keep people from exercising their First Amendment rights.

MNRTL experienced this firsthand in early 2020. The organization launched an outreach campaign using direct mail to build support and collect donations. The strategy was effective.

That is, until activists discovered the identity of MNRTL’s mailbox vendor.

A vindictive, coordinated harassment campaign followed. Activists relentlessly called the vendor and even showed up at its store, loudly demanding that the company stop doing business with MNRTL. The pressure worked. Without warning, the vendor cancelled MNRTL’s mailbox service, cutting off the organization’s access in the middle of an active campaign.

“We were receiving new names of supporters and donations daily,” Dorr explains. “Suddenly, we couldn’t access any of it. We lost thousands of dollars in the process, and we never recovered some of our mail, which likely included additional donations and contact information for new supporters.”

Worse, this wasn’t an isolated incident. Both organizations have been “deplatformed” by multiple vendors providing services such as fundraising management and email distribution. Each deplatforming follows a familiar pattern: activists discover a vendor relationship, launch a pressure campaign, and the vendor caves rather than face continued harassment.

Minnesota’s Dangerous Disclosure Laws

What makes these targeting campaigns particularly dangerous in today’s political climate is Minnesota’s sweeping disclosure law. The state requires advocacy organizations to publicly report detailed information about their grassroots activities, including the names and addresses of vendors, when they spend money encouraging people to contact their elected officials.

The law captures far more than traditional lobbying. Under Minnesota’s broad definition, telling a friend that they should call their representative about a pending bill constitutes “lobbying.” And if organizations spend more than $2,000 on advertising to urge people to contact their legislators, they must publicly disclose their vendor’s name and address.

For organizations like MNRTL and MGR, this creates an impossible choice. Direct mail campaigns—one of the most effective ways to reach supporters—almost always cost more than $2,000. That means every significant advocacy effort puts their vendors at risk of harassment.

“We’ve already seen what happens when these vendor relationships become public,” Dorr notes. “Minnesota’s law is essentially handing our opponents a roadmap for shutting us down, along with an ‘enemies list’ of targets.”

The disclosure requirements are particularly troubling given recent events. Following the assassination of state representative Melissa Hortman and the attempted murder of state senator John Hoffman at their homes in 2025, numerous other states have moved quickly to protect personal information and increase security measures. Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Maine, New Hampshire, and New Mexico—along with Minnesota itself—removed legislators’ home addresses from official websites. The potential danger is obvious, as the gunman had a list of 70 targets and used publicly available information to locate his victims.

Yet, Minnesota continues to require the public disclosure of private business relationships that serve no legitimate government purpose.

The Chilling Effect

The impact on free speech is immediate and severe. Both MNRTL and MGR now actively avoid advertising expenses that would trigger disclosure requirements. That means they’re sometimes engaging in less speech than they otherwise would, or forced to choose cheaper but less effective advertising methods.

“We’re constantly having to weigh the effectiveness of our message against the safety of our vendors,” Dorr explains. “That’s not how the First Amendment is supposed to work.”

The law’s vagueness makes the problem even worse. Organizations often can’t determine whether a particular advertising campaign triggers disclosure requirements. If they pay for an ad campaign in multiple installments, each of which is under $2,000, does that count? What about a single invoice that covers multiple discrete services? The uncertainty further chills their speech as they worry about accidentally violating the law.

In 2024 alone, MGR triggered the disclosure requirements at least eight times, and MNRTL did so more than a dozen times. Each instance puts their vendors at risk and forces the organizations to choose between effective advocacy and vendor safety.

A Broader Attack on Free Speech

What’s happening in Minnesota isn’t unique. Across the country, activists have discovered that targeting advocacy organizations’ business relationships is often more effective than counter-speech or traditional political organizing. The strategy is particularly effective against organizations that take positions viewed as controversial by vocal activist communities.

“This isn’t really about transparency or government accountability,” Dorr observes. “It’s about making certain viewpoints too expensive and too dangerous to express.”

The problem is compounded by Minnesota’s selective application of its disclosure rules. News organizations receive a broad exemption that allows them to urge political action without any reporting requirements—even when they explicitly call for listeners to contact legislators about specific bills. Advocacy organizations like MNRTL and MGR receive no such protection.

Fighting Back

Despite the harassment and the legal obstacles, Dorr and his organizations aren’t backing down. They continue to educate Minnesotans about legislative activity and encourage civic participation. But they shouldn’t have to choose between effective advocacy and putting their business partners at risk of harassment or worse.

“The First Amendment protects the right to speak about issues of public concern,” Dorr says. “That includes the right to associate with others and to organize advocacy campaigns without the government putting targets on the backs of everyone who helps you.”

A lawsuit, filed by the Institute for Free Speech on behalf of both groups, seeks to end Minnesota’s unconstitutional disclosure regime and restore the First Amendment rights of advocacy organizations throughout the state. It’s a fight that extends far beyond any single issue or organization—it’s about preserving the fundamental right of citizens to organize, speak out, and petition their government without fear of harassment or retaliation.

“Our fight is about whether ordinary Minnesotans will be able to exercise their constitutional rights and participate in the democratic process,” Dorr concludes. “It’s that simple. Everyone should be concerned when the government makes it easier for activists to target people simply for speaking out on issues that matter to them.”

To learn more about the case, visit our case page here.