This cycle's presidential candidates might learn a thing or two from George W. Bush on the subject of disclosure: namely, to do more of it. Alexander Bolton at The Hill points to a discrepancy between candidates this time around talking more about disclosure of contributions, but doing less of it than Bush did with his list of Rangers and Pioneers bundlers.

Bundling goes beyond the Beltway. This story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which features commentary from Public Campaign's Nick Nyhart looks at the end run around contribution limits by one very wealthy supporter of St. Louis mayor Francis Slay.

Brody Mullins at the Wall Street Journal labels the prevalent practice of bundling "the chief source of abuse in the American campaign-finance system" and when he does the math and talks to the people in the fundraising trenches, it's clear his charge has merit.

This one's a bit of a head-scratcher. The Los Angeles Times compares Norman Hsu to Oprah Winfrey to illustrate the point that not all campaign bundlers are crooks. And while I grant them that premise I don't buy that just because some bundlers are good people, bundling is a good thing.

The presidential race is crowded and money is tight so candidates are relying more and more on their stable of bundlers and those bundlers are relying more on more on "sure thing" donors, i.e. the people they know just can't say no. What's compelling people who've never given a dime to a candidate to fork over $2,300 asks the Washington Post? A sudden passion for politics, or soft-pedaled coercion?

Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-IL) pens this editorial for the Chicago Tribune urging the House to join with the Senate in requiring disclosure of bundlers -- those who corral large contributions on behalf of a particular candidate -- to promote transparency and ensure accountability.