A bit insecure, are’nt cha?

It’s good to know that you actually read our little blog. Do us a favor and try to stay out of our SPAM folder. And while you’re at it, shut the front door.

Helping someone get elected is not free speech… Anyway, it won’t be too long till we get Hate laws from the federal government, so this legislation isn’t much of a threat to “rights” we won’t long have.

Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense BEFORE the constitution was written, and therefore the point is moot.

He also did not use a public corporation (with its rights, protections and privileges) to publish his work.

The NAACP is a 501c3, not a 501c4. The purposes are different, specifically that the 501c4 is DESIGNED to lobby government and/or influence public opinion.

The money collected in secret by high government officials can easily be converted for private benefit. It is important that the taxpaying public know who is the paymaster of their leaders. As of today, it is clear that Mark Sanford’s paymaster are out of state, rich people that send him millions of dollars to have their goals pursued.

I, for one, do not believe Sanford is working for me…but for his rich paymasters. He can change my mind by disclosing who has given him nearly 6 million dollars…and why.

Club for Growth is a sham…many of its largest donors have profited handsomely by its efforts.

Sunshine is the only way to go. Honorable men and women have nothing to hide.

This bill does nothing similar. It simply makes these groups report their contributors.

Again, why are these people so scared to say who they are?

Josh - we’ll get back to you when we have more than 10 seconds to write.

Good to be back.

My point is that’s the wrong question - that’s the talking point from the politicians trying to protect themselves rather than addressing the arguments made.

We have a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech precisely because men like Thomas Paine wrote anonymously about the subjects of the day (see link in name). Those rights have been upheld by our Supreme Court as applying to persons or groups trying to persuade the public on a specific point of public policy - the 1964 case protected NAACP donors because their lives or livelihoods could reasonably be expected to be endangered by disclosure, and even if they weren’t, it’s their right to say what they will, whether you know who they are or not. (Or if you like what they say or not). Comes back to Voltaire’s old argument about vehemently disagreeing with what is said while defending to the death the right to say things (*see again Steyn’s commentary on Canadian thought police*).

It utterly shocks me that someone who makes his living as a blogger (and a conservative at that) would even begin to defend restrictions on free speech in the name of political expedience.

By the by, these restrictions Leatherman is trying to impose are similar to those portions of McCain-Feingold struck down in the Wisconsin Right to Life case last year, if memory serves…

One last thought - I don’t have a dog in this fight - I’m a free agent now. This isn’t about my employer (since I don’t currently have one), it’s about the principle itself.

JDG