Which states ban anonymous political contributions above certain amounts and what are those thresholds?

1. The federal baseline: anonymous gifts capped at $50

Federal campaign law and FEC guidance set a clear ceiling for anonymous contributions received by party committees: an anonymous contribution is limited to no more than $50, a bright‑line rule campaigns and committees must follow when processing small, unattributed donations ^[1]. This $50 limit operates to force committees to identify donors for amounts above that line or to treat larger anonymous amounts as impermissible or reportable under other statutes, and the FEC guidance is the primary federal touchstone for handling such questionable receipts ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Washington State: a sliding, disclosure‑linked cap tied to aggregate receipts

Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission maintains a distinctive rule that ties anonymous-contribution limits to a committee’s overall fundraising: once a candidate or committee has received more than $50,000 in total contributions in the calendar year, anonymous contributions for the remainder of that year are capped at 1 percent of the total contributions received to date; the PDC also explains that if accepting an anonymous amount would push a campaign over its limit, the funds must be forfeited to the state general fund ^[2]. The PDC’s 2023 rule changes adjusted contribution limits and raised some allowances for cash and anonymous contributions while also increasing reporting thresholds—meaning Washington calibrates anonymous-gift rules in the context of periodic inflationary adjustments and disclosure policy ^{[7] [2]}.

3. Massachusetts: strict small‑cash limit that curbs anonymous giving

Massachusetts enforces a low annual cash limit—$50 per individual to a candidate or committee in cash—which serves to constrain the role of anonymous cash donations at the state level because larger cash gifts would necessarily require identification or be prohibited; OCPF’s published limit is explicit about this low-dollar cap ^[3]. That $50 ceiling functions similarly to federal guidance for practical purposes in preventing substantial untraceable cash flows into state campaigns ^[3].

4. Most states: disclosure thresholds and contribution limits vary, but explicit anonymous bans are sparse in these sources

National compendia from Ballotpedia, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and other tracking groups document enormous variation in contribution limits, disclosure triggers, and whether corporations or unions may give directly, but the assembled reporting does not contain a comprehensive tabulation of “anonymous‑contribution bans” across all 50 states; instead, these sources emphasize differing contribution ceilings and reporting thresholds that make many states effectively require identification for larger donations, without always using the language “anonymous contribution ban” ^{[4] [8] [5]}. Legal and advocacy analyses similarly underscore that disclosure thresholds—amounts above which donor identity must be reported—are a central mechanism by which states prevent large anonymous donations ^{[9] [10]}.

5. Stakes, perspectives, and reporting gaps

Supporters of strict donor disclosure argue that public trust and anti‑corruption demands require identifying significant donors, while opponents warn that disclosure rules and limits impinge on privacy and political speech—an ideological tension Ballotpedia and constitutional commentaries explicitly note ^{[4] [11]}. The available reporting shows clear examples (federal $50, Washington’s 1% after $50,000, Massachusetts $50 cash limit) but does not provide an exhaustive list of every state’s anonymous‑donation threshold; a full state-by-state answer would require consulting each state’s statutes or a comprehensive table beyond the excerpts provided ^{[4] [8]}.