Judge denies request to keep Proposition 8 donors secret

[furrbear]

[The Sacramento Bee]

A federal judge today denied an attempt by Proposition 8 supporters to withhold disclosure of late campaign donors to the state's same-sex marriage ban.

California's Political Reform Act, approved by voters in 1974, requires disclosure of the name, occupation and employer of anyone contributing $100 or more to campaigns. The suit challenges the constitutionality of the disclosure requirement, claiming donors to Proposition 8 have been ravaged by e-mails, phone calls and postcards -- even death threats.

Yes on 8 campaign officials said hundreds of people have alleged harassment, intimidation or threats. Attorneys for Proposition 8 assert that First Amendment rights to be free from retaliation outweigh the state's interest in disclosure.

But U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. disagreed.

"The court finds that the state is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure," he said.

Among the comments on the online article was this keeper:

Funny how it's the Yes on 8 side that's afraid to be known. Don't hear that from the No on 8 side, do we? Why? Because bigots hide in the dark ...

Comments

[geometrician.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that it's too freaking late anyway. The list has been out in the open for two months. This was nothing but a nuisance suit.

[mrdreamjeans.livejournal.com]

Now, they know how it feels!

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

Indeed. It was the Pro 8 forces trying to shakedown anti-8 contributors that brought this about.

They started it. Now they can enjoy it themselves.

[friarjohn.livejournal.com]

The whiny bitches are running around trying to claim VICTIMIZATION.

Makes me hate Republicans.

[jkusters]

It's amusing how so many of the commenters seem to think that the "No" supporters do not and never had any reason to want to keep their donations private. That only the "Yes" people might have had anything to fear. It's just amazing how utterly ignorant and self-centered these people are.

[blt4success66.livejournal.com]

Those that sided with Prop 8 should have been forewarned that because of this law, their names would be open for public scrutiny. Maybe some of those people that supported this legislation will now sue to get their money back so they aren't intimidated?

It is possible, after all, this is America.

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

I disagree. Californians should know their own laws especially since this particular law was the product of voter initiative.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[blt4success66.livejournal.com]

John...I was kidding.

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

And I was to know that... how, Paul?

Ya think a smiley might have helped?

[blt4success66.livejournal.com]

My apologies :(

:) Are we better now?

HUGS!

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

> "Because bigots hide in the dark ... "

Maybe they should turn their closet lights on!

AFTERTHOUGHT: I meant that to come across that the bigots weere having to retreat to THEIR closets, because they were afraid of folks finding out about THEM.

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

You're new to this, aren't you?

[tazz602.livejournal.com]

What they were trying to prevent disclosing was the final list that was due tomorrow that covered the final weeks of the campaign, that and the list already published. There could be some very large donations and new disclosures of people that supported it financially.

[geometrician.livejournal.com]

Ah! Thanks. Well, too bad for them.

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

"You mean the fags and dykes resent being told they're second-class citizens?! Who knew?!"

Morons. As if the Yes-On-H8 organizers didn't know about this law.

[friarjohn.livejournal.com]

No, I just forget just how banal evil really is.

[grizzlyzone.livejournal.com]

Now, if they only started getting letters in the mail, stating that due to some legal reason/screw-up, their marriages were being declared null-and-void.

[strongaxe.livejournal.com]

Considering that the "Yes on 8" people threatened all contributors to "No on 8" that unless they contributed the same amount to "Yes on 8" their names would be made public, now coming around and complaining that their OWN names are being published is the pot calling the kettle black. Go, hypocrisy!

[anziulewicz.livejournal.com]

Since the Religious Right is so fond of using "slippery slope" arguments, here's one:

If you allow all the donors to a conservative cause like Prop. 8 to remain anonymous, by extention you'll have to all donors to ANY political cause to do so, as well, and there is absolutely no more accountability, whether at the individual or corporate level.

[bookish-cub.livejournal.com]

I was reading about this yesterday, and I noticed that the "Yes on 8" side keeps claiming that their donors are receiving death threats. I don't buy it, and I wonder when we suddenly became so dangerous.

[furrbear.livejournal.com]

Which is one of the main reasons California Voters approved the act requiring disclosure.

[hwynym.livejournal.com]

I don't beleive they're getting death threats either. I DO beleive that if they live in San Francisco or other more gay-friendly towns, they're probably on the receiving end of some shunning by their neighbors and if they own a business, they may be noticing a sharp drop in the numbers lately...which is what I'm sure their effort to remain anonymous is REALLY all about...