One correspondent, mpcarrollr25, asked in relation to the issue of undisclosed donations to political advocacy groups: "Does the identity of the messenger impact the merits of the message?" He then proceeded to explain why it does not:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who's behind the anti-Christie adds: people who favor Big Government or make their living from it. So what? The merits of the ideas they advance . . . should stand on their own.
Put simply, the message is true, or not, regardless of the identity of the financiers thereof.
If someone is making minimum wage and wants a governmentally mandated increase, or is gay and advocates for gay marriage, he might be legitimately accused of advocating selfishly. But if one makes same arguments anonymously, the merits of the assertions cannot be so easily dismissed as the mere products of bias or self interest. Put differently if one doesn't know the messenger, one needs to address the merits of the message rather than dismiss it as the product of self interest or launch an ad hominem attack on the messenger. We would be better served if we dealt with the merits of a particular proposal rather than concerning ourselves overmuch with the identity of the messenger. (The NRA or the NJEA might, perchance, be right occasionally, and the substance of the argument rather than the identity of the advocate should be our focus.) [Note; I corrected several misspellings.]
I couldn't have explained the practical case for the right to make anonymous contributions better than mpcarrollr25. He exposes the emptiness of the argument for disclosure laws, which would violate free speech rights to no practical benefit whatsoever.
Freedom of Speech and Press are Linked