Leave it to the Wall Street Journal to complain when reporting information about business tells you something you might actually want to know.
Look at what they're now crying about is "Shutting Up Business"
Democrats claim only to favor "disclosure" of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses.
Yes, the Wall Street Journal haz a sad that people want to know where the money for political advocacy is coming from. And why? Because asking where the money comes from is going to "shut up business."
But it's actually the exact opposite of shutting up business. We're asking them to speak out even more loudly and more clearly about their politics and political activity, and they're refusing.
They're shutting themselves up, and doing it strategically, for the purposes of getting what they want, but without putting their fingerprints on it.
Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.
Funny how all of this outrage about inviting businesses to pipe up only surfaces when the question is, "Who are you, and whose interests do you represent?" The Journal seems all too enthusiastic about telling you the names of the people they think funded the 2006 and 2008 elections. But ask who's funding the 2010 elections, and it's, Oh! You've crossed the line!
What a crock.