Here is a link to the 61-page memorandum in ProtectMarriage.com v Bowen, the decision that rejected a request that the names and addresses of donors to California’s Proposition 8 be kept private. Proposition 8 last year was the same-sex marriage initiative. Although the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 1982 that the Socialist Workers Party could keep the names of its donors secret, this new decision declines to apply that precedent to donors in favor of Prop. 8. The case is not over. Even though the donors failed to win injunctive relief, they will pursue the issue of declaratory relief for future initiatives.
What about the homeless who donated $100 and more to protect marriage? a whole segment of the population is at risk now. After protecting marriage, they protect themselves, what are they going to protect next?
I can’t think of any instances where campaign disclosure laws stopped fraud, can anyone else?
It seems that these campaign disclosure laws serve two distinct parts of our population:
1) Political activists who wish to keep track of their opponents.
2) Reporters who think that by printing the names of donors to campaigns that they are saving the world. These reporters obviously don’t know a thing about real journalism.
Since these campaign disclosure laws generally serve only these two parts of the population, I would suggest that the cost to maintain these records be removed from the general tax burden. Instead, it should be borne solely by a user fee on political groups and the media.
I believe the Socialist Workers Party precedent is not applicable because it applied to political parties and not initiative groups, which may have been the court’s reasoning. I could be wrong, though.
In any case, the backers of all initiatives should be made public anyway as a matter of public sunshine.