- Jan 16, 2014
- 3,580
- 1,629
- 136
While the Citizen's United decision allowed for the big bucks to flow to politicians and their parties, one bit about the ruling that sticks in the craw of wealthy conservative mega donors is that full disclosure of the contributions is required. Now that we have a fascist president, these donors are very uncomfortable about people finding out that they support fascism. Speaking about the conservative backlash when Joaquin Castro posted about some El Paso wealthy donors and their contributions,
I see nothing wrong with consumers deciding to not patronize a business because they have a problem with the political contributions that the owner(s) make, but these conservatives sure do see a problem. In fact, their arguments for resolving this problem sound similar to conservatives who complain that their free speech rights are being trampled because companies won't host their bullshit on their platform, but with a twist.
Nice twist! They are actually arguing that they should be allowed to fund fascism and not have to disclose it because they may suffer financial harm.
Once again, conservatives are trying to define free speech as consequence free speech. This has to be stopped or as Scalia said, "democracy is doomed".
A similar uproar over Trump donors is playing out in the moneyed enclave of the Hamptons, where real estate developers are hosting two fund-raisers for Mr. Trump on Friday. Progressives looking for a way to express their anger at Mr. Trump — and the people who support him — have threatened to boycott SoulCycle, the popular spin studio chain, and Equinox, a high-end gym, both owned by the billionaire developer Stephen Ross, who is scheduled to host the president at his Southampton home.
I see nothing wrong with consumers deciding to not patronize a business because they have a problem with the political contributions that the owner(s) make, but these conservatives sure do see a problem. In fact, their arguments for resolving this problem sound similar to conservatives who complain that their free speech rights are being trampled because companies won't host their bullshit on their platform, but with a twist.
Calling out the people who fund campaigns is not a new tactic in politics, but the question of how much should be publicly disclosed about those donors has been an issue that Republicans, led by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, have repeatedly raised in recent years. While the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 Citizens United case to uphold public disclosure — with Justice Antonin Scalia, the court’s conservative stalwart, arguing later that without such revelations “democracy is doomed” — Republicans and wealthy allies like the Koch brothers have argued that it results in donor harassment and has a chilling effect on free speech.
Nice twist! They are actually arguing that they should be allowed to fund fascism and not have to disclose it because they may suffer financial harm.
But the Supreme Court’s support for campaign finance disclosure laws has a built-in exemption for people who can show a realistic threat of harassment, and the renewed scrutiny on Trump donors has also raised questions about what qualifies as donor harassment and who is entitled to privacy.
Once again, conservatives are trying to define free speech as consequence free speech. This has to be stopped or as Scalia said, "democracy is doomed".
Last edited:
