The Corner

The ‘DISCLOSE Act, Stripped Down’ Fable

The New York Times, apparently unaware that the lame-duck session already is chock full of important work, offers their readers a thumb-sucking editorial bemoaning “secret money” and agitating for the DISCLOSE Act.

Don’t be fooled by promises from the Hill that a “stripped-down” version solves the constitutional issues that were evident in the original bill. The DISCLOSE Act — even a “disclosure only” DISCLOSE (wasn’t that what it was before: “just disclosure”?) — would still infringe on private association rights. It would, for instance, still require groups to reveal their donors regardless of whether the donations were intended for independent expenditures or electioneering communications. It would also impose draconian disclosure burdens on donations made from one organization to another, including those not made with the intent of supporting independent expenditures. And that’s just for starters.

— Allison Hayward is the vice president of policy at the Center for Competitive Politics.

Allison R. Hayward — Nina Owcharenko is a senior policy analyst for health care at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies.

Most Popular

Film & TV

It’s the Deep Breath before the Plunge

Warning. SPOILERS are ahead. If you don’t want to know anything about episode two of the final season of Game of Thrones, stop reading. Now. One of my favorite moments in Peter Jackson's outstanding adaptation of Lord of the Rings happened in the final movie, The Return of the King. On the eve of Mordor's ... Read More