I hope judge Caldwell and Roger Hunt take a good hard look at this survey;
By a 3-to-1 ratio, South Dakotans say campaign finance disclosure laws, such as the one state Rep. Roger Hunt skirted in 2006, provide valuable information for voters. The minority say those laws violate a donor’s right to free speech.
The problem I have with the Hunt case is that it wasn’t about ‘free speech’. What I do on this blog is considered ‘free speech’ what Hunt did is considered ‘money laundering’. I still think he got away with a crime. If you feel passionately enough about an issue to give $750,000 to it, the voters have the right to know who gave that money. That is what I consider ‘free speech’.
In one question, 75.4 percent agreed or strongly agreed that disclosure laws provide valuable information for voters, while 20.2 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed.
In another, participants were asked which view was closer to their own position on the effect of disclosure laws: that they provide valuable information or they violate free speech. Valuable information won 72.4 percent to 22.8 percent.
I think this was worded incorrectly. Like I said above, I don’t think providing your name when you donate to a political cause is violating your free speech rights. You have a choice, you can remain anon and not give the money, no one is forcing you to give up your name, unless you donate the money. Voters have a right to know, in all fairness, who is donating to these causes. I always find it ironic that neo-cons never mention free speech rights when they are being publicly protested, only when it is helping their cause.