I recently returned from Croatia, where I was invited to speak about what works and what doesn’t in terms disclosure of money in politics in the United States. I was certain that the portion of my talk advocating disclosure of all election-related spending would lead to questions about whether, in some cases, anonymity is necessary to protect those who want to make financial contributions for election related activities. After all, Croatia is in a part of the world where, until recently, exercising one’s right to free speech could have serious consequences. I had come armed with answers to respond to questions about whether some level of anonymity associated with political contributions is ever appropriate.

My answers remained in my briefcase. I did not need to share that even the extremely conservative Justice Scalia understands that, "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 this audience, it was a given that the sources of money behind election-related activities must be public. Needless to say, the acceptance of disclosure by those attending a conference on election innovations does not make transparency a region-wide or even a countrywide trend. But that no one even raised the issue of anonymity as a necessary condition for financial political participation was a stark and telling contrast to the debate over dark money in this country.

Since the Citizens United decision, there has been a vocal camp decrying disclosure, despite the Supreme Court’s own recognition that “disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way [and] transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” But compared with the recent and real histories of new and emerging democracies, where free speech has been met with government intimidation, harassment and punishment, the parade of horribles spelled out by Mitch McConnell and others seems almost laughable.

In this country, there are protections for those who can establish a real and legitimate threat as a result of their positions. The Socialist Workers Party, for example, has for years asked for and received an exemption from having to report its contributors based on demonstrable harassment. Such exemptions, given on a case-by-case basis, are narrowly tailored to address actual harm and are a far cry from McConnell’s proposition, which would grant blanket anonymity to corporations and wealthy individuals to protect them from harsh criticism and potential boycotts of their products. (Never mind that boycotts and criticism are also protected by the first amendment.) Pre-emptive anonymity as a method to stave off any possible bad reactions is not only unnecessary, but it places all political speech on a slippery slope toward secrecy. Why stop with dark money? If we are willing to provide contributors to outside groups with blanket protection for phantom threats, shouldn’t all contributors to political candidates and parties be similarly hidden from public view?

For those of us who work on political finance transparency issues in the U.S., it is disheartening to have protect against a system of clandestine influence buying while, at least to us, it appears that parts of world where secrecy had been the norm are now moving towards greater transparency. On the other hand, perhaps it is a matter of perception. Do newer democracies look at the U.S. as at least having a system of disclosure, however flawed? In some countries, is the issue of political finance transparency so new that any debate around the issue of anonymity is yet to come? For those of you exploring political finance transparency around the globe, we’d love to start a dialogue. Please share your experiences, thoughts and perceptions in the comment space below.

It’s axiomatic that the Sunlight Foundation believes transparency can deter corruption, foster accountability and increase the public’s participation in government.  But that is not to say that in all cases transparency alone is sufficient to ensure a cleaner, fairer democracy.  That is why it is troubling when people in the position of shaping public debate blithely remark that contribution limits should be tossed out in exchange for greater transparency.

David Axelrod, the president’s former top strategist and newly minted NBC pundit did just that through a series of tweets. As compiled by Politico, Axelrod tweeted, “Campaign finance system is a mess. Limits have just created a cottage industry for lawyers who devise schemes to circumvent them. Too much money in politics. But if it’s inevitable, let it flow directly to candidates and demand full disclosure, with stiff penalties. And end the SuperPac and faux SuperPac game that too often allows donors to elude detection and candidates to deny responsibility."

Too much money in politics. But if it's inevitable, let it flow directly to candidates and demand full disclosure, with stiff penalties.2/3

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 20, 2013

Exchanging candidates’ unfettered access to the deepest pockets for greater transparency is not a fair trade.  We need disclosure and limits.  Knowing a driver is going 200 miles per hour does not mean it is safe for him to do so.  Similarly, knowing a candidate received $100,000 or $1,000,000 from a single donor does not make that candidate less corrupted or corruptible.  Nor does it foster any faith in our system. As the Supreme Court noted in Buckley v. Valeo, contribution limits are one of the law’s “primary weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence” on candidates by contributors.  The Court found that these limits “serve the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process."

A campaign finance system that permits unlimited contributions to candidates would encourage an arms race between candidates, each promising access and influence to any sugar daddy willing to fork over a six or seven figure contribution.  A plutocracy would evolve, with voters’ and small donors’ voices drowned out by the amplifying power of unlimited contributions from a few.

We share Axelrod’s frustration with the current dark money system and understand that only the thinnest veneer exists between third party groups and the candidates they support. But rather shredding that veneer, laws should adopted to fortify it.  As a first step, Axelrod’s own proposal of “full disclosure, with stiff penalities” should apply to the Super PACs and 501(c) groups that engage in political activities with unlimited funds. The DISCLOSE Act would have provided such disclosure, had it not been killed in Congress. (It should be noted that, consistent with his continued disappointing actions on transparency and reform, the president failed to use any political capitol to ensure passage of a robust dark money transparency bill.)

Our campaign finance and disclosure system is in desperate need of repair. But giving up on it is not the answer. We need to shine a bright light on all the money already in the system, without opening up the floodgates for still more.

Today, Senator Tester announced that once again he has introduced the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, (not yet online) a bill that would bring the Senate into the 21^st Century by requiring senators and Senate candidates to electronically file their campaign finance reports with the Federal Election Commission.

The current filing system in place in the Senate would laughable if it weren’t so destructive to disclosure.  Senate candidates file their quarterly campaign finance reports with the Secretary of the Senate, who prints them out on reams of paper to be delivered to the Federal Election Commission. The FEC then inputs the information contained in those reports into its computer databases. Transparency delayed is transparency denied. The Senate system is anathema to anyone who supports meaningful disclosure.

House candidates and presidential candidates, by contrast, have been electronically filing their campaign finance reports for over a decade—streamlining the process and saving taxpayer money. It is estimated that the duplicative paper filing system in place in the Senate costs up to a half a million dollars annually.

Versions of the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act have been introduced with significant bipartisan support in multiple prior congresses. No Senator that we know of has ever publicly opposed the legislation. The only reason the bill is not law is because it has been used for partisan political squabbles.  As the Senate struggles with massive challenges facing the country, from sequestration to guns to immigration, perhaps this year Senators can finally agree to enact a bill that no one can disagree with.

There's a certain conventional wisdom that President Obama wants stronger campaign finance laws, and to protect our democracy from the corrupting effects of money in politics.

It's a story that you should no longer believe.

The arc of the Obama presidency may be long, but so far, it has bent away from transparency for influence and campaign finance, and toward big funders.

There's the obvious examples, like promising (and failing) to put healthcare negotiations on C-SPAN, only to negotiate a secret agreement with a segment of the industry the reform effort sought to regulate.

But there's a longer pattern here too. Obama came to power as the outsider who would return merit to public policy, and raise up regular citizens' voices in the process, at the expense of the moneyed interests whose power had displaced regular people. (My career was kick-started, in part, by helping to inspire an amendment to a 2006 Senate bill sponsored by Obama and Salazar, an idea emerging from a series of blog posts on Daily Kos.)

Obama was the standard bearer for post-Citizens United reform, sparring with Republican Senate opposition to ultimately fall a vote short of passing the DISCLOSE Act. 2010 was the high point for Obama's campaign finance rhetoric, where weekly speeches and Rose Garden addresses sought to affirm the dangers of dark money, and the need to understand whose money is buying Washington.

How far we've come.

Since then, Obama embraced superPACs and c4s, the vehicles of newly deregulated influence-buying, suggesting that they were a necessary evil, and suggesting that the only alternative would be unilateral disarmament. A reluctant participant in a rigged game. The rationale didn't ring true even then -- the weak disclosure for these groups was justified by appeals to the same broken laws Obama spent 2010 railing against.

Then came the inauguration.

Obama reversed his policy of limiting donors for the inauguration celebration, and failed to post donation amounts online. (George W Bush had amounts and ranges online for his inauguration donors). He sold access to the inauguration, and to the Presidency, to corporate donors, wheedling their way into the privileged positions that move their policy agendas forward. Obama did this for a series of parties, with no public interest justification whatsoever, and didn't disclose donor amounts. The transparency President couldn't publish donor amounts on the internet -- of corporate donors. Private citizens can make hundreds of GIFs of a comical Rubio water swilling incident within 3 minutes, but the President of the United States can't post corporate donation amounts online.

Transparency President no more.

And now we've got the new c4. It's hard to overstate how bad this new policy is for campaign finance. Today's LA Times (via Democracy 21) explains that Obama's new c4 has been set up to sell direct access to the President, for huge sums of cash, which will be disclosed online, quarterly, without specific dollar figures. The President who told us that secret money in politics undermines democracy has now created a huge funnel for donations, with accompanying disclosure that would have been considered cutting edge in 1992. Quarterly disclosure in ranges is the kind of disclosure you create when you don't want to be seen. This should be a policy innovation Obama is remembered for -- a return to soft money and unlimited donations outside the confines of campaign finance law, with instant access to the White House for the most well-heeled donors, all, incredibly, in the name of empowering the grassroots. It's more egregious, direct, (and potentially corrupting) than the similar efforts of recent Presidents who came before him, an evolutionary step forward for money in politics that is more legal, more normalized, and more powerful than it was before.

Maybe Obama has stopped talking about Citizens United because he's learned to use it to his advantage. Maybe his campaign finance rhetoric was fake all along, donning the visage of a reformer. It doesn't matter.

Obama is taking on money in politics by getting more money into his politics.

Obama has done valuable things for transparency. There are innovations that create value for everyone, and many good people in the White House have created valuable things that continue. But we should be clear about Obama's position on transparency when it comes to his political power.

It's time to stop worrying about how Obama can help fix campaign finance, and instead worry about how we fix what he's created.