Your Aug. 18 opinion piece ("Castro attacks free speech in naming donors," Our Opinion) on an "attack on freedom of speech" was completely off the mark.
The editorial claimed that a representative from San Antonio violated the free speech of President Donald Trump's largest local financial donors when he had the temerity to publicize the quantity of their donations. Your conclusion was completely backward. Having this information kept hidden from the public (and prohibiting this representative from bringing it to the attention of his constituents) is the antithesis of freedom of speech, not to mention that such data should be available on all congressional and presidential candidates as we should be permitted to know which way the legislative pendulum is obligated to swing as a function of that money trail.
It is certainly no secret that large donors get the ears of those, and I say this loosely, civil servants who go to Washington. Only the most naive would think otherwise. Years of controversial decisions at the capital have clearly, when viewed in retrospect, coupled campaign money with legislation that favors these same ladies and gentleman who have handed over many thousands of dollars not just because a particular Congressperson looked especially nice in a suit.
I know, hard to believe they aren't completely up front with us (Mitch).
Interference with freedom of speech? Poppycock and balderdash. That editorial reeked of the writer's strong desire to keep the voter in the dark and oblivious to the quid pro quo environs of Washington. My apologies to Mr. Anonymous, but I believe America will not fall for that kind of political party protective drivel.