On January 7, backers of California’s Proposition 8 filed a federal lawsuit, asking that they be exempted from complying with California election laws that require disclosure of the names of people who give as much as $100 to a campaign for or against an initiative. The case is ProtectMarriage.com v Bowen, no. 2:09-cv-00058 (Sacramento). It was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England, who was appointed in 2002. The case depends on the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court precedent Brown v Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee, which said that disclosure is not compelled if there is a reasonable possibility that campaign contributors, if identified, will be subject to harassment. Besides the Socialist Workers Party, other groups that have won freedom from disclosure include the Freedom Socialist Party, Socialist Action, and the Communist Party.
Have to wonder if it’s truly harassment they fear or the fact that the LGBT community will be boycotting their businesses. Why should I spend my hard earned dollars at a business who wants to block my rights as a human being?
It’s quite simple……..NO ONE has the right to block the equality and freedom of another.
The reason voting is secret is that the USA has a strong tradition that ordinary people, when voting, should let their conscience and their inner attitudes determine their vote, without fear that someone is watching. It seems to me that is it logical to extend that logic to donating money, at least amounts as small as $100.
Before secret voting came along there was MASSIVE de facto terrorism by the special interest gangs — vote for the gang candidates OR lose your job or perhaps even your life.
Would King George III loved to have known who was supporting any initiative for a vote in any American colony for Independence in 1776 ??? Duh.
Would Jefferson Davis loved to have known who was supporting any initiative in any slave State to abolish slavery in 1860-1861 ??? Duh.
ONE of the fundamental principles of the ***LAW*** —
What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 325 (1867); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 778, 829 (1995).
Both are landmark cases for reasons of public safety.
Peaceful protests and boycotts are not ‘harassment’ and should not be treated as such. If their is real harassment, then I would be more willing to side with them.
Also, it is a bit funny to see a group of right-wing bigots suddenly saying, “Hey, we are just like the Socialists”. On the plus side, maybe this means that homophobia will go the way of communism…
Considering the violent attacks that occured at many churches by gay-marriage supporters, fear of reprisal is real. I’m not sure which is worse, labeled homophobiacs because of difference on ideology and social moralities or religophobiacs who feel that it is religions that are restricting their preferred lifestyles.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Why should I spend my hard earned dollars at a business who wants to block my rights as a human being?
= Why can’t business owners and individuals be intitled to their own opinions and privacy on what they do politically with their money? Why the f**k does the whole world need to know?
Obviously the social climate in California is getting more fascistic by the minute.
See, conservatives and fear mongers love to bash socialists and communists, until it turns out they did something to the conservatives’ benefit.
What many of the talkbackers may not realize is that the Prop 8 proponents used the No on 8 contributor list to go attempt to shake down large and/or famous contributors on the “no” side. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the right whines away. The right always wants to make enemies lists (David Horowitz, the no-fly list, etc.) but turns around and howls if the lists are used against them. Of course, best from a standpoint of liberty not to have any lists at all, but as per usual the right is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
I agree with frankie, peaceful is one thing and boycotting a business is a peaceful way to protest but violence is out of the question. But the fact is that over the years, homosexuals have been on the receiving end of violent acts more than the giving.
And Brian, you’re right…….they tend to want the rules changed when the shoe is on the other foot.
The bottom line is this……NO ONE has the right to restrict equality of another. Discrimination is wrong, ALL of the time.
Cody, the posting thief: BECAUSE IT IS THE PUBLIC’S BUSINESS YOU TWO FACED TWIT!
——– Donald Raymond Lake
“Cody, the posting thief: BECAUSE IT IS THE PUBLIC’S BUSINESS YOU TWO FACED TWIT!”
= Another reason why the Reform Party failed horribly. Obviously Don doesn’t think anybody deserves privacy, period. He would do well to work in North Korea.
“See, conservatives and fear mongers love to bash socialists and communists, until it turns out they did something to the conservatives’ benefit”
= I’ve never seem conservatives attack socialists and communists the way these homosexual militants have attacked Prop 8 backers.
Going after businesses that have openly supported and donated to Prop 8 might be one thing, but to go after individuals who only donated 5 or 10$ to Prop 8, without involving their job or business, in such a vicious way- is way over the line.
“But the fact is that over the years, homosexuals have been on the receiving end of violent acts more than the giving.”
= I do not know in any instances in which a large mob of ‘fear-mongers’ have boycotted or attacked gay-oriented businesses or businesses who have gay employees, or having a mass vandalization of Unitarian and other Pro-gay Churches in the USA.
If I am wrong, please show me evidence on the contrary.
Can anyone cite any specific examples of how campaign finance disclosure has helped anything? I can’t. You could simply view campaign finance disclosure in this light: it is a government subsidy to the media, so they can write gossip stories about who gave what to a particular candidate. It is also a government subsidy to campaigns and parties, so they can spend hours poring over who gave what to their opponents.
Seriously, when was the last time some “average Joe” went to his state capitol to go through campaign finance statement for a state assembly race (for example) and used that data to decide for whom to vote?