Arguments about transparency have become hard to follow. Government can demand an accounting of money spent to influence politics or public policy; it can certainly compel disclosure of the paid, direct lobbying of legislators. But this is among the easier cases, after which there is disagreement—and confusion—about what the government has the power to do or members of the public have the right to resist.

David Keating and Senator Durbin had just such a difference of opinion. Durbin had asked the Center for Competitive Politics and other organizations (including the Cato Institute) to state for the record whether they had funded ALEC in 2013, and whether they had supported the organization’s “stand your ground” legislation. See, e.g., Letter from Senator Richard J. Durbin to John Allison, President and CEO of the Cato Institute (August 6, 2012). Keating disputed the request’s propriety. Letter from David Keating to Senator Richard J. Durbin (September 16, 2013). To his mind, the request was an act of intimidation and an abuse of office. Any association with ALEC was for political purposes, and Durbin, no friend of ALEC, was using official letterhead and a call for information to accomplish government intimidation of a political adversary.

As the McCutcheon case nears argument, there is more discussion of the consequences if the Court strikes down the individual aggregate contribution limits. The court could certainly take the occasion to alter the basic Buckley framework and tighten the scrutiny applied to contribution limits. But another line of argument holds that the consequences would be sufficiently drastic if the limits fell but the fundamental constitutional law of the land did not change. On this view, the aggregate contribution limit would invite massive spending for the benefit of candidates that would heighten the risk of corruption.

The District Court in New Mexico that struck down a municipal ban on corporate contributions broke away from other courts that, confronting the question, resolved it the other way under the Supreme Court’s decision in Beaumont. Giant Cab Company v. Bailey, No. 13-cv-00426 (D.N.M filed May 6, 2013); Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003). Rick Hasen is confident that Beaumont assures reversal if the case proceeds on appeal (which it may not). Maybe so; but the New Mexico case and perhaps others to follow put in question Beaumont as controlling authority for absolute prohibitions on corporate contributions. In the wake of Citizens United, the outcome remains unclear.

Justin Levitt and Brad Smith are each top-flight thinkers about campaign finance who bring very different perspectives to issues in their field. Now a Professor at Loyola, Justin’s affiliations have included the Brennan Center for Justice. Brad, a Professor at Capital University Law School, founded and chairs his own Center, (the Center of Competitive Politics) and the two Centers are not at all alike in outlook or mission. Levitt and Smith have each recently written a piece—Levitt on the contribution/expenditure doctrine, Smith on the regulation of tax-exempt organizations—that, read side by side, track major, persistent disputes in political law. Each gets much right, but then overstates his case. For Levitt, his defense of regulation comes at the price of an understanding of the political costs. Smith is highly skeptical of regulation but in a way that gives short shrift to one complex regulatory goal that will not go away—public disclosure of certain kinds, and at certain levels, of spending to influence politics or policy.

What to do about super PACs? Joel Gora, no admirer of campaign finance restrictions, argues that we should defend them. Joel Gora, Free Speech, Fair Elections, and Campaign Finance Laws: Can They Co-Exist? Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 346 (2013). If they have come to typify the problems with money in politics, Gora contends, it is because we fail to appreciate their contribution to free speech, or their origins in long-standing independent expenditure jurisprudence. He adds: they didn't have the impact on the outcome that their critics widely feared. In other words, super PACs are good things, not bad things.