The Supreme Court has been asked to consider whether the Attorney General of California may require tax-exempt organizations to produce donor information normally provided only to the Internal Revenue Service. The petitioner, the Center for Competitive Politics, argues that the Ninth Circuit has improperly upheld this requirement by giving the State ready access to this information on a slim-to-none showing of need.  The Attorney General has asserted that the information will be useful to the State's attempts to enforce the law, such as the protections against self-dealing or improper loans.  Others apparently suspect that there is more going on, namely, a move to discourage the sort of politically shaped tax-exempt activities associated with the Koch brothers.

This is an important case, now before Justice Kennedy.  It is the latest turn in a troubled reform debate.   First there is the fight over disclosure, which is relatively new. For years this was supposed to be the common ground that camps badly divided over other forms of regulation could occupy: but no more.  And just as reform communities have suspected political actors of cheating on the law, engaging in "circumvention,” now skeptics of regulation fear that, in the absence of consensus on legislative reform, state actors are resorting to extralegal administrative remedies.

Over the weekend, on the election law listserv, a snippy exchange quickly developed about the California case and what it represented.  In some part, the views fired back and forth reflected the widespread assumption that positions on reform can be explained primarily by reference to their proponents’ political objectives.  It is believed that reformers want regulation to advance progressive policies, or that their antagonists oppose regulation because they wish to surrender political power to the marketplace.

A few years ago, after the enactment of McCain Feingold, the Federal Election Commission began issuing implementing rules, and there were not well received in reform quarters.  It was objected that the agency was ignoring Congressional intent and gutting the law.  One line of attack was possible Hill intervention to disapprove the rules pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.   At a lunch with Senators to discuss this possibility, a prominent reform leader told the assembled legislators that if they did not reject the rules and hold the FEC to account, the public “would rise up” in protest. The public uprising did not occur, neither the Senate nor the House took action, and the reform critics took their cases to court—with some but not complete success.

But the hope for public pressure remains alive, and as Matea Gold reports in The Washington Post, there is some thought that with Super PACs and the like, things have gotten so out of hand that voters will insist on action.  The ranking of campaign finance among other priorities important to voters remains low, but by one reading, it is inching up the list.  Any upward movement is taken to be, maybe, a sign of more popular passion to come.  This is always the wish.  In the annals of modern campaign finance, it is never a wish come true.

But campaign finance history also shows that elected officials can be moved to take up this cause, and the same Post story that speculates about changes in public opinion records, more concretely, restiveness on the part of politicians.  And this could make a difference.  Candidates and officeholders cited in the story, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, worry about the small number of Americans—“about a 100 people”-- who can shape the course of a campaign with their money.  The issue for Senator Graham is not, apparently, the cost to political equality: it is the unfairness to candidates who find that these wealthy activists “are going to be able to advocate their cause at the expense of your cause.”

Long in the field of campaign finance, well versed in its triumphs and tribulations, Larry Noble of the Campaign Legal Center objects strongly to the suggestions for disclosure reform I co-authored with Professor Samuel Issacharoff.  It’s all a magic trick, he argues, that accomplishes the reverse of its stated intention: it moves contributions into the dark, raises the risk corruption and disregards the lessons of Watergate.  The public is not “gullible”: it won’t buy it.

It is difficult not to imagine that Mr. Noble is engaged in theater of his own, something like the aerial feat performed yesterday by the mailman in a gyrocopter who touched down on the Capitol grounds with a similarly passionate appeal for campaign finance reform.  This gentleman, undoubtedly sincere but less clearly prudent,  entitled his project “Kitty Hawk”, after the Wright Brothers’ fabled flight in North Carolina in 1903.  Larry, if he were maneuvering a craft, might have  named it “Watergate," and he would have refreshed the message by 70 years, with only another four decades to go to cross over into the current century and to the present time.

This is an opinion piece co-authored with Sam Issacharoff,  appearing yesterday in Politico:

The money hunt for the 2016 election cycle is in full swing, and there is no surer sign of it than the first complaints recently filed by reform organizations. While, as in the past, there is intense interest in the likelihood of record-breaking sums and innovative spending strategies, this year, perhaps more than in the past, attention has turned to transparency. “Dark money” is dominating the campaign finance lexicon.

Current conversations on this topic have a Groundhog Day quality, and it seems that they are stuck between the dreary and the dreadful. Part of the problem is that nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court limited the objective of campaign finance regulation to the prevention of corruption or its appearance, and decades of debate ensued about what is and what is not corruption. And all this in the service of identifying when candidates and political parties come under the “undue influence” of money.

It’s time to retire the tired discourse of corruption and return to the core objective of giving voters access to relevant information. Disclosure today is best understood as a service to voters. Voters care about the “big money,” large contributions and expenditures in support of candidates. Those are the funds that most shape the issues raised and emphasized in campaigns and compel our attention.

A wing of the progressive reform movement, frustrated with other strategies, is turning to the carrot and the stick.  It program is to use rewards or punishments to exact pledges or other commitments from candidates and officeholders.  It will dangle the prospect of financial support, wield the threat of denied campaign funding, and maybe mete out punishment for resistance by giving money to the opposition.  All of this is described by Derek Willis in a recent New York Times Upshot piece that notes what is long been known – – that voters do not rank campaign finance regulation high among their priorities.  Unable to rely on public opinion or pressure, these reform advocates look to cut a deal with current or prospective legislators, to make them an offer they cannot refuse.