The Supreme Court will decide soon whether states can bar judicial candidates from directly and personally soliciting contributions to their campaigns. The stakes are high; the stakes are also low.

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.

In a second round, at the second level of the Chevron test, a federal district court has struck down the FEC's attempt to read a "purpose" requirement into the “electioneering disclosure” rule. Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission, No. 11-0766 (ABJ), 2014 WL 6657240 (D.D.C. November 25, 2014). The general view is that the Court probably got this right and that to the extent that the issue has remained unresolved for this long, the FEC (once again) should take the blame. Those adopting this position point to Judge Jackson's opinion, in which she lays out in some detail the obscure route by which the FEC arrived at its position.

But, as so often, the FEC is paying handsomely for the complexity of the issue and the sins of others. A fair share of the responsibility for this disclosure controversy lies with the Supreme Court's garbled jurisprudence, which has produced confusion about the constitutionality of campaign finance requirements applied to “issues speech”.

A recent posting here suggested that the constitutional analysis of ID statutes is foundering on the issue of partisan motivation—the politics of ID. The centrality of this motivation is inescapable. it is impressing itself on a prominent jurist like Richard Posner, once dismissive of claims against ID statutes, and it is supported by the evidence considered by political scientists (see here and here). Yet the jurisprudence developed around ID has fared poorly in showing how political motivation can be incorporated into a constitutional test.

Troubled as always that the government might be dabbling in politics, George Will wrote this last week about the Patent Office cancellation of the “Redskins” trademark registration. His larger point is that once the government has the discretion to jump into political debates, it may choose those occasions that suit its political or ideological preferences. Citing Jonathan Turley,  he gives an example from campaign finance: the FEC’s exercise of discretion in approving the financing of Michael Moore's documentary about George W. Bush, Fahrenheit 911, while disapproving Citizen United’s now-famous documentary about Hillary Clinton.