>"Our country doesn't have a tradition of unlimited anonymous election spending. That only started happening with Citizens United in 2010. So we're not about to

>"Our country doesn't have a tradition of unlimited anonymous election spending. That only started happening with Citizens United in 2010. So we're not about to unleash some new torrent of attacks on previously anonymous donors." To be clear, Citizens United was engaged in either campaign spending, candidate advocacy, or issue advocacy, depending on how you look at their actions; it is difficult to describe what they did as 'election spending' because the money was not going towards an election. This is a meaningful distinction, and not merely semantic for a number of reasons, of which I am sure we are all aware. There is a history of anonymous political speech in the USA, beginning with the federalist and anti-federalist papers. If one agrees that media corporations should be allowed to spend on anonymous campaign speech, then it follows that everyone else should have the same right. It is illogical to limit anonymous speech to broadcasters, publishers, as well as their friends and allies.