The Cycle‘s S.E. Cupp talks about the “transparency and disclosure” of campaign contributors and Swiss bank accounts.
The Rant:
Full disclosure! It seems like transparency and disclosure – of campaign contributions or Swiss bank accounts – have been given a moral imprimatur. Who would argue, after all, that more information could ever be a bad thing?
But for as much airtime as disclosure and transparency are getting, there’s little evidence that laying it all out there can really change much.
We take as rote that sunlight is the best disinfectant, transparency is the same thing as honesty, and full disclosure can make otherwise onerous transactions work better. Maybe not.
Take, for example, President Obama’s new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The premise of the bureau is that consumers need protecting from predatory lending, and some of those protections should come in coercing lending institutions to disclose more about their practices. Sounds reasonable enough. But when the Federal Reserve performed some empirical experiments to see how disclosure impacts behavior, the results were astounding.
As John Gravois explained in a new Washington Monthly piece, “when brokers were required simply to explain that they were working in their own interest and not the borrower’s, borrowers trusted them more for being honest, still without really understanding what was going on.”
Score one for honesty, but that’s hardly good news if the goal is to create smarter consumers.
Part of the problem isn’t just that being brutally honest can actually engender trust while clouding the mind, but disclosure is also a less than effective means of fixing real world problems, because merely requiring disclosure demands no further action.








