General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWall Street Journal lashes out at measure that would expose wealthy 'dark money' donors
By Tom Boggioni
Published October 31, 2022
?id=24719559&width=1200&height=765
On Sunday the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal expressed dismay that Arizona voters will have an opportunity next week to pass a bill that will lend more transparency to elections by not allowing wealthy donors to hide behind "dark money" organizations.
At issue is the Voters Right to Know Act, also known as Proposition 211, which would mandate that all donors giving more than $5,000 have their names available to the public.
As the Journal's editors see it, it will have a "chilling effect on free speech" because donors might face the wrath of critics --with the editors specifically singling out "the left."
https://www.rawstory.com/gop-dark-money/
Face a rash of critics and have an effect on free speech, coming from the same oligarchy that has twits sitting on a white couch doing exactly what spreading hate and then the best part have three jerk's in prime time aiding and abetting a dictator in Russia, the kist goes and on, and don't get me started on Paul Pelosi and what that vile organization did and said about Speaker Pelosi........they will deserve it in my opinion.....because lets not forget who gave them this BS....John Roberts and his court in Citizens United.....they bastardized the first amendment and said the green back is free speech....
Historic NY
(40,037 posts)WWJD, he'd whip them out of the Temple, we need to whip them out of buying election and influence. This Murdoch owned publication sides with the dark side.
Faux pas
(16,356 posts)murdoch
Hotler
(13,747 posts)Suck it Wall St., suck it dry. Shut the fuck up, remember the bailout we gave you??
2naSalit
(102,789 posts)marble falls
(71,919 posts)Mz Pip
(28,454 posts)We should at least get to see whos speaking.
DBoon
(24,983 posts)sanatanadharma
(4,089 posts)Free speech implies public speech. Words not publicly spoken could never be impeded and are thus totally free.
Only public speech needs protection from suppression. To be anonymous is to be not-public, hidden (unspoken).
In order to judge the veracity of the speaker, the public deserves to know whose words are spoken in public, speech (money), and meant to influence the public-conversation.
Free is not hidden. Free is available to all without restrictions. In politics, as with Instagram, 'influencers need to be seen.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)We don't publicize victims' names sometimes because it would hurt the victim again and again.
But Dark Money is an actor (takes action) and should be held up to the light of day for scrutiny.
chriscan64
(1,789 posts)Putting aside for the moment the ridiculous notion that money equals speech, free speech is subject to a response also protected by free speech. One cannot reasonably expect to have the full protection of free speech while inhibiting the free speech of the response by hiding identity. If your speech is so goddamn important, put your name on it or shut up.
Back to the ridiculous notion, if money equals speech, then those who have more money have more free speech. I will use my limited amount of free speech to say, "I got your speech right here!"