I reported to you last year that the ethics bill was filibustered to death by conservative senators who opposed its lack of provision for independent investigation. I also have reported to you in the past that “ethics reform” is one of those things that newspaper editorial boards and about a dozen politicians believe is the most important thing—not roads, not stopping Obamacare, not your Constitutional freedoms—but passing a bill, that may or may not actually do anything, just so it can be signed in a photo opportunity for those who apparently need to convince someone that they are “tough on ethics.”

This year’s bill is not just empty on meaningful reform but actually does some real harm. The original bill did provide for a new and apparently independent investigative authority, but it also contained some troubling components. The bill mandated that the family of an elected official disclose their income along with the official. I’m not sure why it helps voters to know what my kids make from selling lemonade or raking leaves or what my wife may make if she works outside the home, but here’s the real problem. Let’s say that my wife works at Chick-fil-A. When I take a vote to protect your 2nd Amendment rights or the rights of the unborn, guess where the liberals show up to protest? They don’t come to my office, they go to Chick-fil-A and harass the business owner until he fires my wife. We see this scene play out all of the time now with liberals using social media to boycott the advertisers on conservative talk radio. When the liberals know where our families work, then we’ll see it here too. I won’t support that.

The other component of “ethics reform” that its cheerleaders must have is a requirement that issue advocacy groups disclose the names of their donors. The consequences of that are the same likelihood of intimidation as noted above, but there’s a more insidious element in this proposal. I believe, and I think that many of you also believe, that donations to advocacy groups, whether on the right or left, are political speech protected by the First Amendment. The average person cannot spend enough money to move the debate on protecting unborn children or keeping our taxes low, but they can pool their money and support groups who will get their voices heard. Why does government need the names and addresses of those people? I can think of only one reason—to intimidate them. The recent IRS scandal is proof positive of the potential. President Obama used his power to intimidate conservatives who had to identify themselves to the IRS until a couple of conservatives, most notably our congressman Trey Gowdy, stepped in and said that’s enough. Well, I believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and so I won’t be supporting the destruction of your 1st Amendment rights in this bill.

We’ll see if the ethics bill ever grows into something sensible and legitimate, but unfortunately you can count on its handful of supporters using it to divert attention away from what really matters.