The Post has an editorial this morning with which I agree, one that advocates passage of common sense legislation designed to eliminate anonymity in the realm of political donations. I agree with this stance. I haven't read the "Disclose Act", but I don't doubt that there are enough poison pills in it to run off significant Republican support.
I do however, support the Post's call for a stripped down bill that eliminates financial anonymity. I don't care if a corporation believes that its interests would be hurt by broad knowledge of its donations, any more than I care if individuals are tracked by their donations. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to take this whole debate the next step.
I think there should be NO LIMITS on how much an individual, corporation, Union, or advocacy group gives to any candidate, cause or party. None whatsoever. But along with this loosening of limits would come an ironclad disclosure regime. At that point, we'd have a truer sense of just what (and who) money was buying in elections, and there would be nowhere to hide for candidates who who take this money. The Press--both mainstream and otherwise--would keep voters informed as to who got what from whom, and voters would have the opportunity to decide.