Re: Obama’s demand that Americans for Prosperity release its list of donors — didn’t Alabama try that with the NAACP in the 1950s? Legally, of course, the cases are different, because Alabama subpoenaed the NAACP’s membership lists. But what’s the difference in principle? And does anyone believe that Eric Holder’s Justice Department hasn’t at least considered the idea of subpoenaing AFP’s membership list? Because, you know, some political organizations are more equal than others.
So, private citizens (the voters asked to add their names) demanding that an organization founded by billionaires release the names of its donors is equal to (=) the the STATE using its power of SUBPOENA to compel, under threat of fines or jail, an organization to release its membership lists. You guys can't do math.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCurb your hysteria. Jim's posting says that the Obama campaign message is: "Americans for Prosperity ... is claiming that its donors are “tens of thousands” of folks “from all walks of life.” We’re asking them to prove it by disclosing their donors to the public."
If they are making a claim in public, they can get called on it. That doesn't mean they HAVE to provide the donor list. They can drop the claim, ignore the campaign, provide an auditing report of their donor base... There are a lot of possible responses.
But it's not neo-Nazism for the libs to respond to a publicly stated claim by saying "prove it."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse