Donor disclosure laws require campaigns, parties, and certain political committees to report contributors above a threshold to a public election regulator. The Federal Election Campaign Act and state equivalents created a register so voters can weigh who paid for political messages.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) upheld disclosure as constitutional because it serves anti-corruption and information interests without restricting speech itself. Citizens United (2010) reaffirmed disclosure even while striking spending limits, with Justice Kennedy writing that "transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions."
Disclosure gaps appear where the law doesn't reach: 501(c)(4) groups, donor-advised funds, and shell LLCs that contribute to super PACs without naming beneficial owners. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would close those gaps.
Disclosure is the floor of self-government — if you don't know who's trying to persuade you, you can't tell propaganda from policy advocacy.
People often think Citizens United banned donor disclosure. It didn't — the Court upheld disclosure 8-1. What's missing is statutory coverage of (c)(4)s and LLC donors, not a constitutional bar.
Disclosure is the floor of self-government — if you don't know who's trying to persuade you, you can't tell propaganda from policy advocacy.
People often think Citizens United banned donor disclosure. It didn't — the Court upheld disclosure 8-1. What's missing is statutory coverage of (c)(4)s and LLC donors, not a constitutional bar.