It is no secret that the campaign finance debate has become fruitless and repetitious – – in short, exhausted. Mark Schmitt of the New America Foundation, a powerful progressive voice on reform, is one among a number of who believes that the entire question should be rethought from scratch. He has published a paper through a collaborative effort of the Brennan Center for Justice and the New America Foundation, arguing for a new framework built around a conception of political opportunity. He should win a large audience for what he says about the staleness and inaccuracies in the policy debate, and for the suggestions he makes for a change in direction.

Writing off the Koch announcement of massive 2016 spending, Ron Fournier urges that we be realistic about campaign finance reform in the 21st century: no limits, just instant disclosure. He seems to be salvaging what he can from the current mishmash of changes in political practices, outdated campaign finance requirements and increasingly unsparing limits on Congress's constitutional authority. Without a sharp focus on disclosure, he argues, the 2016 election will go largely dark.

Fournier’s analysis has two considerable virtues: a call for the debate to adjust to constitutional and political realities and an emphasis on single-minded priority in the reform of the law. The debate is stuck, and one reason is that a fair number of interested observers are dedicated to fighting the same arguments heard since the 1970s. A whole host of objectives are being kept artificially alive for discussion. Political spending is to be reduced and the prohibition on corporate spending restored. Independent spending is to be curtailed because some of it is suspect, gutted by disreputable, if not invariably illegal, forms of coordination. Political discourse is being poisoned by attack advertising.

And, of course, there is too much "dark money" and disclosure law should be strengthened against it. Here is where Fournier recommends that reform energy be expended.

Some weeks ago, a number of individuals with different professional backgrounds and perspectives on campaign finance came together to urge the Federal Election Commission to take certain initiatives to improve the enforcement of the law.  (I was one of them.)  In a period of difficult, highly contested constitutional and legal questions, the FEC is in a difficult position, often charged with the perceived “sins” of others and itself divided  over regulatory direction.

But in this turbulent period, a key step for the agency is to define the available paths toward clear law, accessible and regularly updated guidance to those subject to the Act, and strengthened compliance and bipartisan enforcement. The signatories to the letter urged that the Commission consider revisions to “advance core regulatory purposes and policies in the public interest, such as the more effective implementation of well-established disclosure requirements.”

Today, in a further step, the same group has filed a Petition for Rulemaking, calling on the Commission to implement the statutory mandate to expand the Administrative Fines Program, address ambiguities, omissions and uncertainties in its guidance and reporting forms, and generally improve the enforcement of the disclosure provisions.  Once again, the signatories are unified in their view that this is a critically important function for the FEC to play, and that respect for the law and the prospects for successful compliance depend on sound administration of core statutory requirements.

The Wall Street Journal has little use for campaign finance rules, and it cannot surprise anyone with its complaint about state laws compelling political disclosure. But its reflexive suspicion of motives behind these laws, and ready, scornful dismissal of any need for them, does not mean that it is always wrong. A recent editorial questioning a state disclosure law, and praising a court for overturning it, is a case in point. The WSJ has this one right. The problem it identifies has cropped up around the country, and it is not helpful to the cause of reform to have the objective of disclosure defined by enactments like this.

When skeptics of compelled disclosure warn about the dangers of reprisal and harassment, the answer most often is that the Supreme Court has already addressed this contingency. Groups that can make a showing that they are uniquely vulnerable to harassment can apply for an exception. In this way the conversation drifts quickly to NAACP v. Alabama.

The skeptics, however, remain unpersuaded, and in a recent blog posting, Lyle Denniston points out that changes in politics may account for their discomfort. He refers specifically to the “deep polarization of the parties and the effect that has on coarsening the content of political expression.” He suggests that in this climate, the concern with donor privacy has broadened sufficiently that “privacy in political expression” now figures prominently in disclosure debates and requires a balance that the Supreme Court will be eventually called on to strike.

As the Denniston posting was published, a federal district court in Colorado entered an order in the latest phase of litigation over a state disclosure requirement modeled on the federal “electioneering communication” provision. This case serves as a good example of contemporary disclosure controversies, bringing out key disagreements over how disclosure laws should apply to smaller-scale issues speech.