This piece originally appeared in The Trentonian on July 24, 2025.
The tragic assassination of Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman and the attempted murder of State Senator John Hoffman in June spotlights the very real threat of political violence. In response to these shocking events, New Jersey Assemblyman Chris DePhillips proposed legislation shielding state legislators’ home addresses from public disclosure.
This change would follow recent, similar reform efforts. Two years ago, the legislature removed residences from financial disclosure forms. A 2022 bill proposed by Assemblyman Lou Greenwald would have removed the addresses of candidates and elected officials from documents subject to the Open Public Records Act. These common-sense measures recognize that people shouldn’t have to choose between public service and ensuring their families’ safety.
As the state considers protecting lawmakers, it should also address a vulnerability that puts tens of thousands of ordinary New Jerseyans at risk: the mandatory public disclosure of political contributors’ addresses.
Discovering that information has never been easier. Federal Election Commission (FEC) Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum has powerfully articulated this threat. In a May 2024 statement, she noted that accessing contributor information in the 1970s required visiting the FEC’s office and browsing paper filings. She warned, “armed with only an individual’s name, it takes less than a half dozen clicks on the Commission’s website” to locate their address.
The dramatic transformation from analog to digital has left campaign finance laws dangerously outdated, creating new risks for Americans who support candidates at a time when political passions are too often slipping the leash.
The scope of this exposure is staggering.
Here in New Jersey, candidate contributions over $200 trigger public reporting. There is no government interest in publicly reporting the addresses—which stay online forever—of small contributors. Donating such small amounts poses no risk of political corruption. Yet, such modest contributions expose donors to the possibility of harassment, employment discrimination, or even violence—particularly as political polarization intensifies.
The Minnesota shooter’s case illustrates these dangers. Federal authorities found that the attacker used data brokers to locate his victims’ addresses, compiling a list of nearly 70 targets. While the shooter victimized elected officials, the same tools and tactics could easily be turned against ordinary citizens whose only “crime” was supporting the “wrong” causes or candidates.
Even before the shooting, three states had addressed this problem. California, Texas, and Wyoming protect privacy by withholding street addresses of contributors from online disclosure.
Spurred by Commissioner Lindenbaum, a Democrat, the bipartisan FEC unanimously recommended that Congress amend federal law so that the agency “shall not include the street name and street number of individual contributors in the information it makes available for inspection by the public … and accessible to the public on the Internet.”
This approach acknowledges transparency interests while respecting personal safety. Contributors’ names, cities, ZIP codes, employers, and donation amounts would remain publicly available, providing ample information for oversight and analysis, while removing information that could enable harassment or violence.
Additionally, the threshold for who must be reported is far too small.
For statewide races, disclosure should only apply to major donors—say, those giving $2,500 or more. This change would eliminate the absurd invasion of privacy faced by small contributors. At the same time, it would reduce reporting requirements for campaigns, many of which are run by volunteers who struggle to track every small donation, and make it easier for the public to track large donors.
Every American should be able to support candidates and causes without fear that their participation will compromise their family’s safety. As New Jersey and other states consider protecting their lawmakers’ addresses, they should extend similar privacy to everyday citizens who simply wish to contribute to a candidate or cause. The tragic events in Minnesota remind us that political violence is a very real threat—but a threat that we can mitigate by not making private citizens targets who can be identified with a few keystrokes.
As legislators seek to shield themselves from political violence, they must remember that the constituents they serve also deserve protection. The time for comprehensive donor privacy reform is now.
