A Republican-backed bill moving through the House is drawing sharp criticism from several conservative organizations that argue it could undermine donor privacy and weaken efforts to challenge major corporations in court.
According to Fox News, the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025, introduced by GOP Reps. Darrell Issa, Scott Fitzgerald, and Mike Collins aim to increase disclosure in civil lawsuits by requiring anyone receiving payment in a case to reveal their identity.
Supporters say the legislation would prevent hidden financial interests from influencing litigation. But a growing chorus of conservative groups says the bill goes too far.
In a letter sent this week to the House Judiciary Committee, Tea Party Patriots Action and more than a dozen conservative organizations urged lawmakers to reject the legislation.
The letter warns that “sweeping disclosure mandates in this bill threaten our core American principles of personal privacy, confidentiality, and freedom of speech and association.”
The groups argue the bill would force litigants to reveal sensitive financial arrangements, including outside funding used to support lawsuits, even before judges determine whether such information is relevant.
“The bill’s forced disclosure mandates would broadly apply to any number of political organizations, religious groups, law firms, or individual plaintiffs that rely on outside support to vindicate their rights,” the letter states. It argues the legislation could chill free speech, discourage donors, and make it harder for ordinary Americans to pursue claims against powerful corporations.
“This legislation would require litigants to preemptively disclose detailed information about private financial arrangements,” the letter says, adding that disclosure regimes can be “weaponized by bad actors” seeking to intimidate political opponents.
Issa pushed back Thursday, telling Fox News Digital that “misinformation” is circulating about the bill. He said a “small update” would be released to clarify that the legislation does not require nonprofits or advocacy groups to reveal their donor lists.
“We’re not looking to overturn NAACP v. Alabama,” Issa said. “Of course, you don’t have to disclose your donors.”
He emphasized that the bill targets only material third-party funders or partners who play a direct role in the lawsuit.
Supporters of the legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say greater transparency is needed to curb hidden litigation financing by hedge funds, foreign-backed entities, and shell companies. In a February press release, Issa argued that undisclosed third-party funding distorts the justice system and leaves judges and defendants unaware of who is driving lawsuits.
The debate reflects long-standing tensions between large corporations and advocacy-oriented nonprofits that rely on litigation finance to pursue cases. Many organizations use structured funding agreements that allow them to front legal costs and recover them only if a case succeeds — a practice critics say is necessary to help individuals challenge corporations with deep pockets.
Some conservative activists argue the new bill threatens that model. Consumers’ Research executive director Will Hild called the legislation an “attack” on one of the few tools available to fight “woke corporations.”
“This bill blatantly tips the scales in favor of woke corporations and makes it far harder for victims to secure the resources they need to fight back,” Hild told Fox News Digital.
Other opponents warn that forced disclosure could expose donors to harassment. Alliance Defending Freedom founder Alan Sears pointed to Supreme Court rulings affirming that compelled disclosure can threaten First Amendment rights.
Backers of the bill counter that foreign adversaries, particularly China, are exploiting the U.S. court system through opaque funding networks. The High Tech Investors Alliance said the bill would help “defend American businesses” by preventing shell companies from hiding their financial backers in litigation.
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to take up the bill on Thursday. Issa said the legislation simply ensures judges know who the real litigants are and can review funding information privately if needed.
“We just want to make sure that the judge knows,” Issa said, adding that the goal is to make disclosure a standard part of how courts evaluate cases.
