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, found reason to believe and conciliated a matter where an experienced political consultant knowingly and willfully violated Federal law by soliciting a contribution from a foreign national by offering to transmit a $2,000,000 contribution to a super PAC through his company and two 501(c)(4) organizations, to conceal the origin of the funds. This scheme was only unveiled after appearing in a The Telegraph UK article and video capturing the solicitation. See Conciliation