Insufficient transparency and yet more unanswered questions
For a guy who already has associations with unrepentant terrorists, America-hating preachers, and convicted felons, this latest information does not inspire trust or confidence in his judgment, now does it?
(H/T to Instapundit.)
Joe raises a fair point in the Comments section about NewsMax and I posted this because the article’s author, Timmerman, has been a generally credible reporter over the years in my opinion.
I believe the bigger issue here is the refusal by Obama’s campaign to disclose his donors. Unlike McCain who has. I have been extremely critical of McCain’s definition of campaign finance reform and the resulting impact on limiting free speech but at least he has told us who has given money to his campaign.
More to the point, as I have written before, if I could set the campaign finance laws of this land, I would strip away all dollar limits by donors and require that all donations be given to the candidate directly, the party directly or to defined third parties…on the condition that the names of specific persons making the donations to any such entity are posted on the Internet within 24 hours of the donation. Complete and immediate transparency. I don’t care if George Soros wants to give Obama $25 million tomorrow. But I do care about knowing it within 24 hours thereafter. And I don’t want Soros or anyone else hiding anonymously behind some PAC entity.
Maybe Obama’s getting foreign donations. Maybe he isn’t. The problem is that we don’t know the answer today and that means there could be unacceptable foreign influences on this campaign. It is unacceptable to only find out the answer to that after the election. I want everyone to know the answers now and I want Obama to have to explain any anomalies. Same with any Republican. One standard: complete and immediate transparency…and then let the public decide if the resulting information influences their opinions.
More here, here, and here.