This piece was originally published in The Oklahoman on April 24, 2026.

Sen. Brent Howard’s recent column raises a concern that initially sounds reasonable: voters should be able to identify who is trying to influence their vote. But his suggestion to amend the First Amendment to give incumbents new power to limit speech about government would effectively gut our right to free political speech.

It’s also unnecessary because Oklahoma law already addresses his concerns, and, more importantly, his amendment would allow speech regulations that no Oklahoman should want.

Start with the premise. Howard suggests that money flows through outside groups in secret, leaving voters in the dark about who funds speech urging the election or defeat of candidates. But Oklahoma ethics rules, which have the force of law, already tackle this problem.

Rule 2.107 requires disclosure of independent expenditure spending, which is spending to support or oppose candidates that isn’t coordinated with a campaign. Anyone making donations totaling over $5,000 must report them to the Oklahoma Ethics Commission. Additionally, Rule 2.18 prohibits giving money to someone else so that they can make a contribution in your name and hide it from voters.

Put simply, the transparency Sen. Howard wants already exists.

So what problem, exactly, would a constitutional amendment fix?

Clearly, Howard’s goal is something broader, such as forcing disclosure from any group that discusses politicians or public policy 365 days a year, not just before an election—a sweeping new government power over political speech. Effectively, it would repeal the First Amendment as it applies to speaking out about politicians or government policies.

In the landmark Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo, the opinion noted that “the distinction between discussion of issues and candidates and advocacy of election or defeat of candidates may often dissolve in practical application.” The Court said Congress could only regulate speech that expressly advocated the election or defeat of candidates.

In effect, Sen. Howard is saying the Buckley Court was wrong.

That’s where his proposal gets dangerous. Once states are empowered to regulate “election-related” spending without First Amendment constraints, the definition will expand—as it always does.

Under the powers he would grant to politicians, such regulations would inevitably sweep in not just advocacy groups, but media outlets that cover candidates, endorse politicians, and publish opinion pieces like this one. The only reason media outlets have historically escaped such mandates is a specific press exemption that raises an uncomfortable question: why should some speakers get to influence elections freely while others face disclosure requirements and restrictions?

The American Civil Liberties Union—hardly a right-wing organization—has consistently opposed such a constitutional amendment for precisely this reason. When Congress considered such an amendment, which all Republicans voted against, the ACLU strongly opposed it. They noted that it would directly interfere with Americans’ ability to engage in political speech about causes that affect their lives. It gave one of many examples, asking whether “an ad by a group urging repeal of [President Obama’s] Affordable Care Act, which runs before the 2012 presidential election” could be regulated or not.

That warning applies equally here. Groups across the political spectrum, from pro-life organizations to environmental advocates to gun control activists, rely on the ability to raise funds from supporters to speak out about vitally important issues. Many donors won’t give to causes if their name ends up in a public government database.

The Supreme Court recognized this danger decades ago in NAACP v. Alabama, holding that forced disclosure of membership lists could expose supporters to harassment and retaliation. In today’s polarized environment, that concern is more pressing than ever.

Sen. Howard frames his amendment as returning power to “the people.” But it would flip the First Amendment on its head and give government officials unlimited power to decide who could say what about them, and when.

We don’t need a constitutional amendment that sacrifices essential First Amendment rights for the illusion of greater transparency.