Republicans now say disclosure of campaign donors is an enemy of “free speech”

The LA Times reports that now that contribution limits for campaigns are gone, Republicans are no longer interested in public transparency: “During their long campaign to loosen rules on campaign money, conservatives argued that there was a simpler way to prevent corruption: transparency. Get rid of limits on contributions and spending, they said, but make sure voters know where the money is coming from. Today, with those fundraising restrictions largely removed, many conservatives have changed their tune. They now say disclosure could be an enemy of free speech.”

The Republican Party doesn’t want us to know who’s buying our government. It’s going to be a surprise.

How to buy a Romney White House: Foster Friess and The Daily Caller

Earlier I posted that both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Wyoming almost-billionaire businessman Foster Friess were at the Faith and Freedom Conference yesterday. McConnell spoke about wanting to protect Republican donors from more disclosure laws — to protect them from “public scrutiny.”  Friess talked about his plans to donate to Romney’s campaign ‘undercover,’ giving money to Romney superPACs through 501(c)4 organizations which wouldn’t disclose where the contributions came from.

After Neil Munro of the The Daily Caller heckled President Obama yesterday in the Rose Garden, during his address on immigration and the Dream Act, and Tucker Carlson (Munro’s boss) obviously approved, it’s worth noting that Foster Friess helped start the Daily Caller with $3 million in seed money — and continues to invest in it.

Video of the Day: In a serious breach of etiquette, Neil Munro heckled the president and was immediately condemned. This makes sense when you realize that the Daily Caller isn’t “reporting” news and isn’t a neutral media outlet in any way. The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, and Neil Munro take their marching orders from their owners like Foster Friess who have a clear political agenda and have enough money to make it happen.

CNN commentary:

Imagine the rending of garments on the conservative side, had this been done to a Republican president. Dixie Chicks, anyone?

McConnell doesn’t want you to know which billionaires want to buy a Republican for the White House

Sam Stein reports on why Mitch McConnell wants to protect the very wealthy from your “scrutiny” and “backlash” –

In a series of speeches and interviews over the past day, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued against adding a further layer of disclosure to the campaign finance system, suggesting that the Obama administration would use it to browbeat political opponents.

The Kentucky Republican has long been one of Congress’ foremost advocates of a far-reaching interpretation of First Amendment rights. And his remarks, first to Fox News, then to the Faith and Freedom Conference and finally to the American Enterprise Institute, followed in that vein.

…Donors to politically active nonprofit groups, he said, do not deserve to be subjected to public scrutiny or backlash.

That’s really very interesting, considering that Buzzfeed (Romney’s personal online PR firm) is reporting that Santorum’s old sugar daddy, Foster Friess, says he’s going to donate to Romney’s campaign “undercover:”

“Well I’m going to do that more undercover, I’m going to do it through a lot of c4′s so it’s not so high profile,” Friess said at the Faith and Freedom Conference, where he is scheduled to speak on Saturday. “I was stunned to see how much attention — I had no idea what happened, I must have had 60 or 70 interviews.” “So I think if I do it through c4′s, I can keep a lower profile which is probably better.” Friess explained the tactic further. “If you give to a c4, it doesn’t get disclosed,” Friess said. ”If you give to a c4, it doesn’t get disclosed,” Friess said. “So if I give money to various organizations, nobody knows what I’m giving. Even my wife won’t know.”

Notice they were both at the Faith and Freedom Conference.