State Rep. Byron Cook’s latest effort to take on “dark money” is designed to get around Gov. Greg Abbott and some of his fellow lawmakers. His goal is to prevent political action committees from hiding the source of their funds by enshrining it in the state constitution, through a vote of the people.

But that’s a bad idea. While this newspaper’s default position is openness and transparency, those aren’t absolutes. There are good arguments for not disclosing donors, as history shows.

First, though, let’s examine Cook’s position. Coming off a bruising primary race, in which his challengers were largely funded through political action committees, Cook has proposed a measure that will need two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate, but then could bypass the governor (who doesn’t have the authority to veto a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment).

As the San Antonio Express-News reports, this could be Cook’s only shot at getting such a measure passed.

“It’s a priority bill for the state of Texas,” Cook told that newspaper. “If we don’t help give transparency to this issue, there’ll be no reason for any candidate to do anything other than set up vehicles to allow them to receive money anonymously.”

That’s a compelling argument, but it’s flawed. Here’s why.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that there are good reasons to not disclose the source of donations. The case was called NAACP v. Alabama, and it was decided in 1958. The state of Alabama wanted to force the NAACP to reveal its donor and membership lists. The Court held that if Alabama did so, the NAACP’s members and donors could be at risk.

“We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the Court ruled. “And we conclude that Alabama has fallen short of showing a controlling justification for the deterrent effect on the free enjoyment of the right to associate which disclosure of membership lists is likely to have.”

In other words, forcing a then-unpopular organization such as NAACP to expose its members and supporters would interfere with those members’ rights of privacy and free association.

As Abbott said last year, when he expressed his opposition to such as measure, “As a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, I wrote that laws like that are unconstitutional and I based that decision on United States Supreme Court decisions. It’s important for legislators to not to try and pass laws that have already been ruled unconstitutional.”

Now, it’s only some non-profits that are currently exempted from disclosure rules. Direct donations to campaigns are public, as are super PACs.

But there’s an appropriate role for 501(c)4 groups that remain exempt. Cook’s bill to put a constitutional amendment before voters should be rejected.