Gov. Doug Ducey signed a bill that creates a major roadblock for opponents of a new campaign finance law on “dark money” organizations who hope to get the law repealed via citizen referendum.

HB2296, which the governor signed on Wednesday, exempts any organization that has valid nonprofit status with the Internal Revenue Service or is in good standing with the Arizona Corporation Commission from the statutory definition of “political committee,” meaning they can spend money on elections without having to register as a political committee or file campaign finance reports that would disclose the source of their funds.

The language is identical to a provision of SB1516, a wide-ranging overhaul of Arizona’s campaign finance laws written by Secretary of State Michele Reagan’s office. And for organizers of a proposed citizen referendum on the bill, that is likely to be extremely problematic.

Proponents of HB2296 say its purpose is to protect organizations that spend money on independent expenditures from enforcement by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which they accuse of exceeding its authority. SB1516 doesn’t go into effect until the beginning of 2017, and the bill’s sponsor said the second bill will protect organizations such as the Arizona Cattlemen’s Association, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce that spend money during the 2016 election cycle.

But for organizers of a proposed citizen referendum against SB1516, the new bill is a major roadblock. Now, even if referendum organizers convince voters to reject Reagan’s campaign finance overhaul, the dark money provision that they view as one of its most onerous parts will remain in the law. SB1516 completely replaces Arizona’s campaign finance statutes, and if it is blocked from going into effect, the law would revert to the preexisting statutes, which now include the dark money exemption.

That means opponents are faced with the daunting task of having to run two referenda to strike down one statute.

Chandler attorney Tom Ryan, one of the referendum’s organizers, alleged that the intent behind HB2296 was to undermine the referendum against SB1516.

“I’m certainly disappointed that the governor has decided to play along with the chicanery propagated by the state Legislature. This is a horrible law and it’s designed to defeat legitimate efforts of citizens to refer a statute they don’t like,” Ryan said.

Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for Ducey, said the governor did not sign the bill to in any way hinder the referendum effort.

Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, who sponsored the bill, has acknowledged that HB2296 will make the referendum more difficult, but that wasn’t his intention. He said the bill was “a response to Clean Elections overstepping its bounds” and intended to protect organizations that exercise their constitutional right to spend in elections.

“Had that not been the case, I would have dropped the bill,” Mesnard said. “Is one of the side effects that there’s two referendums? That’s a side effect, that’s true. But that was not the primary motivation by any means.”

It takes 75,321 valid signatures to refer a bill to the ballot, and Ryan’s group will almost certainly have to collect that number of signatures for both SB1516 and HB2296 in order to scrap the exemption provision. They have until August 5 to collect the signatures.

Ryan’s group has already begun collecting signatures on SB1516, but had to wait until Ducey signed HB2296 to start collecting signatures on the second bill. And Ryan said it’s possible that they won’t run a second referendum at all.

The attorney said the campaign is awaiting a legal opinion on whether it’s even necessary to run a referendum on HB2296. Because the SB1516 contains an identical provision, Ryan said it’s possible that the Voter Protection Act – a provision of the Arizona Constitution that prohibits the Legislature from altering voter-approved measures – would bar the exemption provision from going into effect under any circumstances if voters reject the same law in SB1516.

Whether the Voter Protection Act prohibits lawmakers from passing a law that has been rejected via citizen referendum is an unanswered legal question that has never been tested in court.

Ryan said he expects to receive the legal opinion soon.

“It has to be soon, because otherwise, time’s wasting,” he said.