Further ingraining the state's hold on an institution they should having nothing to do with in the first place? I don't think you know what "deregulation" means
With respect to symbolism, is that not regarded as free speech? Or did that just take another in a long string of hits?
The point was to weed out hate speech and make unpopular beliefs illegal. They appear to have succeeded roundly. Now it's just a matter of making sure hate speech and unpopular beliefs only apply to things you don't like.
I would fully expect the latter of the two. It seems to be the modis operandi of the DC political machine these days. If they truly wanted that information, they'd raid NSA databases to retrieve that information (assuming the SoS and other key members of Congress weren't on an exempt list). I fully expect that (like 9/11) the information was available, but the actionable intelligence was not compelling enough to devote the resources. Then, like everyone else playing MMQB, there's a lot of railing against about what we should have done long after the fact for the sake of political gains. IMO, it is much more likely that the real reason that the Clintons don't want this released is because of their damning knowledge of their Foundation financials and its clear violations in the wake of it. The claim of administrations "wanting transparancy" should make anyone laugh to the point of vomiting anymore.