Democrats for Secret Donors
The party that wants to expose conservatives wants a reprieve.
July 22, 2016 6:47 p.m. ET
Don’t look now, but Democrats may be having second thoughts about donor disclosure. At least when it applies to them. On Thursday the Democratic National Convention host committee asked a Pennsylvania judge to let it withhold donor names until after the convention, on grounds that releasing them early could damage fundraising.
The disclosure request was made by independent Pennsylvania journalist Dustin Slaughter, who asked to see the Philadelphia Host Committee’s financial reports under the state’s right-to-know law. In June the state’s Office of Open Records ordered the records to be released, but the host committee appealed.
“They want the information before the convention starts,” committee lawyer David Pittinsky said Thursday. “We are going to take advantage of the federal legislation that gives us the right to file it no later than 60 days [after the convention].” Translation: Inconvenient donor disclosure needn’t apply to Democrats.
RELATED ARTICLES
That’s Odd, ‘Big Money’ Isn’t Buying This Election
The Clinton Business Model . . .
Clinton’s Accidental Transparency
This is hilarious given that Democrats and their progressive allies have spent years demanding donor disclosure so they can intimidate conservatives from engaging in political speech. Democrats in Congress have tried and failed to pass bills to force donor disclosure on tax-exempt groups, and even to amend the First Amendment so political donations don’t quality as free speech or association.
The July draft of the Democratic Party platform says, “we need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency.” Hillary Clinton promised Netroots Nation last Saturday that as President she would press government agencies to require more political disclosure. She also said that in her first 30 days she’d introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that restored the free-speech rights of businesses and unions.
Never mind that the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose hundreds of foreign donors until the, er, “mistake,” as she put it, was discovered by the press. Put this one in the file for Democrats and double standards.
The party that wants to expose conservatives wants a reprieve.
July 22, 2016 6:47 p.m. ET
Don’t look now, but Democrats may be having second thoughts about donor disclosure. At least when it applies to them. On Thursday the Democratic National Convention host committee asked a Pennsylvania judge to let it withhold donor names until after the convention, on grounds that releasing them early could damage fundraising.
The disclosure request was made by independent Pennsylvania journalist Dustin Slaughter, who asked to see the Philadelphia Host Committee’s financial reports under the state’s right-to-know law. In June the state’s Office of Open Records ordered the records to be released, but the host committee appealed.
“They want the information before the convention starts,” committee lawyer David Pittinsky said Thursday. “We are going to take advantage of the federal legislation that gives us the right to file it no later than 60 days [after the convention].” Translation: Inconvenient donor disclosure needn’t apply to Democrats.
RELATED ARTICLES
That’s Odd, ‘Big Money’ Isn’t Buying This Election
The Clinton Business Model . . .
Clinton’s Accidental Transparency
This is hilarious given that Democrats and their progressive allies have spent years demanding donor disclosure so they can intimidate conservatives from engaging in political speech. Democrats in Congress have tried and failed to pass bills to force donor disclosure on tax-exempt groups, and even to amend the First Amendment so political donations don’t quality as free speech or association.
The July draft of the Democratic Party platform says, “we need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency.” Hillary Clinton promised Netroots Nation last Saturday that as President she would press government agencies to require more political disclosure. She also said that in her first 30 days she’d introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that restored the free-speech rights of businesses and unions.
Never mind that the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose hundreds of foreign donors until the, er, “mistake,” as she put it, was discovered by the press. Put this one in the file for Democrats and double standards.
