In the debate over campaign finance disclosure laws, it’s no mystery what side The Washington Post is on. Editorials like these consistently advocate expanding burdensome disclosure requirements to even more groups and even more forms of spending than what the law already extensively requires. In the Post’s view, the need for more compulsory disclosure is dire and failure to provide it is “corrosive for democracy” and “undermines our political system.”
So it is with no small measure of amusement that we note the August 17 editorial, “Democrat? Republican? There’s an app for that,” in which the Post is shocked and appalled to learn that some people might actually use the data produced by the disclosure laws they boastfully support. The source of the Post’s distress is BuyPartisan, a smartphone app that allows users to scan a product’s barcode and then view campaign finance data on the political giving of that company’s employees and PACs. The app has a tagline, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if you could spend how you believed?’
The Post reacts in horror:
“We don’t discount the app’s politics-nerd appeal: Mr. Colbert suggests that bar patrons might whip out their phones to see whose beer is more Republican or more Democratic. But Americans taking this concept seriously? That prospect is terrifying… It’s not just that Americans refuse to marry, socialize and live near people who disagree with their partisan affiliation. If the app succeeds, it would be a sign that Democrats and Republicans aren’t even willing to do business with one another any longer.”
The editorial concludes:
“We can think of a few things this kind of app could usefully do, like help consumers sort out companies with sketchy records on human rights. But we hope BuyPartisan fails.”
Strong words from the publication that once asked, “What, exactly, is the problem with transparency?” I guess they found their answer. Strangely enough, it sounds a lot like many of the issues we’ve long raised as potential drawbacks to disclosure. (And our view seems to be gaining traction among political observers, such as here, here, here, and here).
In the past, the Post has typically given our concerns short shrift, but cast in the light of politicizing your shopping trips, they suddenly seem to realize what has always been true of disclosure: there’s no way to stop activists from using the resultant data to make enemies lists or organize boycott campaigns. There’s no way to stop people from using disclosure data to divide every person, company, and product under the sun into either liberal or conservative camps. There’s no way to stop people from using this private information to politicize every aspect of life.
In short, there’s no way to stop the misuse of disclosure information. On top of that, proper use is a rare thing. Disclosure has virtually no marginal benefit on voter knowledge, and academic research has shown that so-called campaign finance “reforms” generally have no impact on corruption and public trust in government. Reporting based on disclosure falls into a number of common traps and tends to mislead and distort rather than clarify and inform. BuyPartisan, or similar services such as MapLight or the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets website, are not bugs of disclosure; they are features.
If the Post has a problem with that, it ought to re-examine the laws that made them possible. Maybe they will finally realize that while sunlight is great, too much of it is blinding. When disclosure is ubiquitous and instantly accessible, it’s hard not to see politics everywhere you look. That’s not a world the Post wants to live in, and that, at least, we can agree on.
