A good place to start is my 2005 Election Law Journal article, Veiled Political Actors, with Beth Garrett, and my 2010 Direct Democracy Scholars amicus brief in Doe v. Reed, which look at disclosure laws (and loopholes) in ballot issue campaigns.
I’ve written about disclosure in ballot issue campaigns elsewhere on these pages, and I think Justice Scalia articulated the necessity of transparency in a democracy his concurring opinion in Doe v. Reed, when he wrote:
There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self governance…Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.
So, to think corporations will be cowed into submission, or be endangered by the “palpable” threat of “retaliation” and “reprisals,”in either ballot issue or candidate campaigns, as some critics of disclosure–such as former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith now argue–I would only refer readers to Chairman Smith’s own writings. In his 2001 book, Unfree Speech, Smith grudgingly accepts a regulatory scheme grounded in disclosure. On p. 224 he admits:
Thus, there may be modest benefits to be had from a system that provides voters with information on the sources of campaign funds, through mandatory disclosure.
Indeed, disclosure not only provides “modest benefits,” it is the essential lifeblood of any democratic republic.