For campaign disclosure *and* anonymous political speech

I’ve written quite a bit about how Democrats are getting more money from Wall Street and K Street than Republicans are. Today on Twitter, Chris Hayes of the liberal magazine The Nation, a fellow New Yorker with whom I often agree about government corruption and lobbying, knocked me for using campaign contribution data, which he said was misleading (presumably because it excludes outside expenditures) and because I was “mak[ing] use of a regulation [I] dislike.”

But here’s the thing: I think politicians should be required to report all contributions (and I would make reporting much quicker — like within 24 hours of getting the check).

On the other hand, I don’t think outside groups should be required to disclose their spending or very much about their identity.

It comes down to this: government shouldn’t interfere with political speech, but it should regulate candidates for office. In other words, campaign contribution disclosure isn’t a regulation on the donor, but on the candidate. Requiring outside groups to file reports and follow disclosure rules is abridging political speech — it could intimidate critics of government and create barriers to entry for small players.

Exxon aims to leverage Texas courts to silence San Francisco and CA climate critics

Oil firm claims its history of publicly denying the climate crisis is protected by First Amendment

Deep in the heart of Texas: Niners corral Cowboys, 23-17

San Francisco holds off late charge. Packers up next