He would be front page news if the politics of the situation were reversed.

I agree with your OP in terms of the media coverage or lack of. You are right.

I also have to wonder why funding Trump is a bad thing or something to be ashamed of? I am actually for public disclosure across the board. But not like that.

in general, it isn't/shouldn't be bad or shameful. It's a voluntary way for citizens to be active participants in helping their candidate...Bravo.

the inferred issue here is to fan flames in a specific geographical area, heavily Hispanic, That should be discussed...Castro's brother likely did not consider the potential for harming people beyond monetarily.

Someone could get killed.

That's what I meant by not like that. You can't point at the other side if you do the same. Decency is lost on both sides of the aisle.


And if he didn't think about it then come clean and fix your mess the best you can. Don't dig in or double down.

is this any worse than Citizen's United?

I think so. One is a court decision.... the other political hackery at best with potentially bad outcomes which similar minds are currently blaming the president for at the moment. One doesn't justify the other.

we are a nation of laws...but the Courts are not impervious to making mistakes...and Citizen's United has contributed to the current toxic political climate...

we should all embrace the concept of political donor transparency in total, making donor rolls at all levels of politics and government an open book...we the little people need to know who our officials' masters are...

oh im there and don't like the decision..... but your question was is what Castro did worse. And I think it is.

Funding a political candidate (in this case Trump) isn't a bad thing on the face of it. But it's all about location.
I don't have a Trump sticker on my truck. Mostly because bumper stickers are stupid. But also because it's a good way to get a $30,000 vehicle scratched, dented or worse.
Yes.
Because of a sticker.

The information Castro posted is public knowledge. But his method should land him in jail for trying to incite violence.
Polling booths have curtains because how you vote is your own business.
The fact that he hasn't been relieved of his position is a very dangerous precedent.

Than push to make that a law Al......you can do that the right way by contacting your Congress critter and or paying a lobbyist to promote your cause. You really don’t see in the current climate from both sides, that there’s no reason for privacy? Tell me WHY YOU need to know who I donated to. I do see what you said about transparency being an ideal, but what practical purpose does that serve? How about reforming amount limits while maintaining privacy....if we can even put what people can practically donate then we’re evening everyone’s access to “speech”. You know if you try to push something like that that has NO partisan implications you might UNITE agreement. Been then the establishment wouldn’t be winning....

#staydivided

Trying to stoke hatred in his base against those they feel threaten them?

Repulsive

I think all doners over a cumulative number (like a grand) should be identified in a publicly available list.

But this was targeted.

It is on a publicly available list. This was publishing and again people who refuse to see the weaponization of doing so are part of today’s problem.

See Teedubya that is a way to make Delta1’s case in a way that could bring people closer to agreement and not closer to violence or intimidation.

I don't get it Z. I'm not trying to be obstinate but I agree the way it was used is weaponize and wrong. It is a fine line though because I do think we need transparent. .

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/clinton-donors 

Speaking of front page news....

(ok, not actually the front page, but we all remember that time when the clinton donors list was literally published in the news, right?)

I don't know if what this dude did was right or wrong. But I know some snowflake pearl clutching when I see it.

Are your votes public?

no...votes are not public...but donor info above certain small limits are...

our campaign finance laws have historically sought to show who's donating to which candidate...that's why Citizen's United was such a remarkable decision...it flew in the face of decades of legislation to provide more transparency in campaign finance...

who the heck would want that?