The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that money is the equivalent of speech in campaigns (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 ) and that speech may not be curtailed even to prevent the appearance of corruption in politics (Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 558 U.S. 50 ). And it doesn’t appear that either of those holdings will be overturned anytime soon.
So, an appropriate solution, I argue in my piece, is to require full disclosure of all donations and spending intended to influence the political system. That would include donations made to so-called public benefit corporations, also known as 501(c)(4) non-profits.
And it appears, based not only on Justice Scalia’s remarks in the Times story but also in Citizens United, that the Supreme Court would uphold disclosure requirements as constitutional.