WikiLeaks has decided to intervene in the U.S. election campaign. Help WikiLeaks run the United States over the next four years

So, for the next 34 days, beginning on 3 October 2012, we are launching a new fundraising campaign running up to Election Day, 6 November.

You can still donate to WikiLeaks using a variety of easy methods, including workarounds for Visa, MasterCard and PayPal. These donations go to fund WikiLeaks’ publishing and infrastructure costs and our legal costs to fight the financial blockade.

Today, Wednesday 10th October, WikiLeaks begins releasing over 200,000 Global Intelligence Files (GI Files) relating to the U.S. presidential elections. Each week day we will release thousands of emails referring to Obama, Biden, Romney and the Republican and Democratic parties. Today we will publish over 13,734 emails referring to republican(s), Romney, RNC and/or GOP, ranging from 3rd January 2011 to 19th December 2011.

The GI Files total over five million emails from the U.S. private intelligence firm Stratfor. Stratfor is a secretive multi-national private intelligence firm, providing services to large corporations, and government agencies. Despite providing the U.S. government with "global intelligence" services there is no public oversight of Stratfor.
[..]
Through this release WikiLeaks aims to inform the U.S. electorate in an unbiased way through the release of source documents from one of the most oddly influential companies in the U.S. today. We call upon all people around the world to search the emails and publicise their findings using the hashtag #wlfindGI.

Whoever you elect into power, keep them accountable by supporting WikiLeaks - vote with your wallet, vote WikiLeaks.

Who is Anonymous to determine what is or is not immoral enough to have their private information revealed? Anonymous, along with WikiLeaks, have deems themselves as arbiter of what is and is not moral. Many Americans believe that Government spying into personal emails flies in the face of the constitution. Why would we celebrate a group of people doing the same things that we decry when it comes from Government? (snip)

We have a sincere lack of privacy in this nation -- and world. I believe that is a given. That said, I ask: when a group such as Anonymous steals private information and reveals it, how can we expect to see more transparency from the very groups that we desire it from? It appears that Anonymous/Wikileaks had no proof that this company was doing anything illicit aside from what appears to be a "hunch" based on the notion that it may be acting like a shadow CIA. I suspect we will see an ever bigger clampdown of information instead of more transparency.

WikiLeaks may espouse ideals of information freedom. But lately, it seems that information freedom isn't free.
[..]
Even without making a donation, the pop-up is hardly insurmountable–disabling javascript turns it off. And after a few minutes of butting my head up against the video message with various browsers, the block disappeared and didn’t show up again, implying that it may be a technical issue rather than a hard-sell tactic.

But that hardly appeases WikiLeaks’ hacker fans. On twitter, accounts related to Anonymous exploded with vitriol, calling the tactic “moneywhoring” and “pathetic.”

“WE DO NOT MAKE ANY MONEY WITH LEAKS. WE DESPISE ANYONE WHO DOES. over and out,” wrote AnonymousIRC, a popular mouthpiece for the hacker movement.

“How totally fucking arrogant. You know what, taking it down isn’t enough. You remove it and apologize or fucking EXPECT US,” wrote the account for the People’s Liberation Front, (PLF) an Anonymous sub-group, using the hackers’ usual threat for an impending attack.

The hackers’ outrage was compounded by the fact that the files WikiLeaks had advertised earlier in the day were allegedly stolen by Jeremy Hammond, an Anonymous member arrested and charged in March with an attack on Stratfor. “Good Anons are in PRISON right now (#FREEJeremyHammond) & indicted for the Stratfor Leak,” wrote the PLF. “You risk WAR with Anonymous. Fix it.”

Update: WikiLeaks has confirmed that the pop-up is intentional, but pointed out via Twitter that visitors can skirt the paywall by sharing a link to the donation pop-up instead of paying, or simply waiting several minutes, as I found. “A tweet, share, wait or donate campaign is not a ‘paywall,’” the group wrote, helpfully adding a link to its merchandise page.
[..]
Update: As of around midnight. WikiLeaks seems to have dropped the pop-up without comment, though it continued to appear for some users for several hours. AnonymousIRC has declared their support for the group again.

Do the ends justify the means? What is the end game? Let me repeat something posted earlier: "The material contains privileged information about the US government's attacks against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and Stratfor's own attempts to subvert WikiLeaks," the whistleblower website said. I don't believe I need to give the backstory regarding Mr. Assange here. I think it is fair to question motives at this point. I have long held the belief that when a group operates in anonymity we should question motives and reliability. Who is to say that you or I won't be next for writing something unsavory about WikiLeaks or anonymous?