,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The New York Times published the name of every donor to the Clinton Foundation with a searchable database, so forgive me if I'm not willing to listen to NYT reporters wringing hands over anyone publishing the publicly available names of Trump donors. nytimes.com/2008/12/19/us/…
The notion that listing names from legally mandated public lists of political campaign donors is somehow out-of-bounds is unadulterated insanity. The ENTIRE POINT of campaign donation disclosure laws is for people to know who donates to who.
Hell, anyone turning this into a story or a controversy should declare themselves giving in-kind contributions to Republicans because they are basically picking up their propaganda on this matter and running with it.
This is going to turn into some sort of inside-out, through-the-looking-glass clusterbang in which Republicans demagogue all this under the banner of "free speech" and "privacy rights" to abolish campaign disclosure laws, isn't it?
Sorry if I've got a bit of the red ass about this, but in my past life I did a lot of work with campaign finance laws and I can tell you that there is NOTHING a crooked politician wants more than for people to not know who donates to them.
I wonder how much of the agitation at Castro's thing is really about Republicans who want to preserve their ability to later say that they never supported Trump but can't do so if people annoyingly point out how much they, in fact, support Trump.
I wrote all this up in a handy post: craigcalcaterra.com/blog/tweet-nam…
