Reply #90: You're right, but the other argument could be made just as easily.

[TrollBuster9090]

As presented to the Supreme Court:

A) This is not a discriminatory order because businesses that don't want to disclose their campaign donations are not being forced to do business with the govt.

B) This IS a discriminatory law because it's their (political) choice whether they want to disclose their contributions or not, and the govt. is discriminating against people who've made one political choice vs. another. It would be the equivalent of forcing a business owner to disclose whether he voted Democrat or Republican before his company is allowed to bid on a government contract, which is already (technically) illegal. (I say "technically" because it's a well known fact that the Bush Administration imps were asking people they were interviewing for political hack jobs in Iraq in 2003 whether they voted Democrat or Republican, and if they were registered for one party or another. That's how we ended up with 20 year old kids straight out of college in charge of traffic control in Baghdad. They may not have had any experience in traffic control, but they past the political litmus test.)

I could easily see the Roberts Court opting for argument B. Very ironic, given that this is the party that wants to give private business owners back their right to discriminate against people on the basis of race! But, as I'm sure Rand Paul would explain it, INDIVIDUALS are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or politics, but GOVERNMENT cannot.