On Thursday, the Senate Rules Committee will hold a hearing on the DISCLOSE Act of 2012, legislation that would strengthen disclosure requirements for outside groups working to influence elections.

Transparency should be easy. It used to be, at least. But like so many other issues in Washington, it has become political.

If Senators at the hearing use language like “chilling speech” or “silencing political opponents,” to describe the DISCLOSE Act, it’s important to remember that many of these same members didn’t always see transparency as so draconian.

Here are some key facts ahead of the hearing:

In 2010, every Democratic member of the Senate Rules committee voted in favor of the first incarnation of the DISCLOSE Act and every Committee Republican--aside from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who did not vote--voted against.

On the Senate floor, the final vote on the 2010 DISCLOSE Act was 39 to 59, with Democrats failing to get the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. Sens. Hutchison and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) did not vote.

Many Republican members on the committee have, at some time or another, spoken publicly about the importance of transparency in our elections.

“Third, in place of limits, the First Amendment Protection Act would require full and prompt electronic disclosure of all contributions. … Wouldn't it make more common sense if the FEC took all the energy it now spends enforcing contribution and spending limits and directed it toward making sure that voters were kept fully informed about the candidates and their financial backers?”
- Ranking Member Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), “Should Tom Paine have filed with the FEC? The loss of common sense in campaign finance reform,” Speech to the Cato Institute, January 21, 1998.

"Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate."
- Sen Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), from 1997, as quoted by the Lexington Herald Leader, “McConnell’s hypocrisy on campaign disclosure,” August 1, 2010.

"[A]nyone who spends money for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a federal election, no matter what that activity is, they should have to disclose where they're getting the money and how they're spending it.”
- Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), “News Conference with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), Representative Chris Shays (R-CT), Representative Martin Meehan (D-MA),” Federal News Service, January 22, 2001. (Accessed via Lexis-Nexis)

“What this bill does, is at least keep the emphasis on the two- party system. And it also provides the transparency. And I will tell you that if you provide the public transparency with a body politic, the American people are about six jumps ahead of some of the editorial comments, in regard to what this bill contains or not. They instinctively know this. So I'm very happy to be a cosponsor.”
- Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), “U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Holds News Conference With Others Regarding Campaign Finance Reform,” March 20, 2001. (Accessed via Lexis-Nexis)

"The people have a right to know who is contributing to ads that are made in a political campaign."
- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), “U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Holds News Conference With Others Regarding Campaign Finance Reform,” March 20, 2001. (Accessed via Lexis-Nexis)

"Mr. President, serious reform must also contain provisions that increase the frequency and specificity of mandated contribution disclosure. I support measures which bring about greater transparency, those that allow the American people to know the where, the when, how much, and from whom of campaign contributions."
- Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), “Sen. Shelby Spoke on Senate Floor Regarding Campaign Finance,” Congressional Press Releases, October 7, 1997. (Accessed via Lexis-Nexis)

------------

Will more transparency fix our system of legalized bribery? Absolutely not. But at least Congress could make sure the American people know who’s trying to buy our elections—so they can judge for themselves if these big donors are getting a return on their investment.