and holding their elected officials accountable, detecting and deterring quid pro quo corruption, and identifying information necessary to enforce other campaign finance laws, including campaign contribution limits and the prohibition on foreign money in U.S. campaigns. To further these substantial interests, campaign finance disclosure must be timely and complete, and must disclose the true and original source of money given, transferred, and spent to influence Federal elections. Current law does not meet this objective because corporations and other entities that the Supreme Court has permitted to spend money to influence Federal elections are subject to few if any transparency requirements. (2) As the Supreme Court recognized in its per curiam opinion in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, (1976), disclosure requirements certainly in most applications appear to be the least restrictive means of curbing the evils of campaign ignorance and corruption that Congress found to exist. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 68. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Court reiterated that disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech. 558 U.S. 310, 369 (2010). (3) No subsequent decision has called these holdings into question, including the Court’s decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021). That case did not involve campaign finance disclosure, and the Court did not overturn its longstanding recognition of the substantial interests furthered by such disclosure. (4) Campaign finance disclosure is also essential to enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act’s prohibition on contributions by and solicitations of foreign nationals. See section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 ( 52 U.S.C. 30121 ). (5) Congress should close loopholes allowing spending by foreign nationals in domestic elections. For example, in 2021, the Federal Election Commission, the independent Federal agency charged with protecting the integrity of the Federal campaign finance process,