Thursday, January 29, 2009

Federal Court Upholds Donor Disclosure requirements in California

The cry babies in the "Yes on 8" camp just got bitch slapped by a federal court judge who rejected their crocodile tears over their alleged mistreatment as a result of their contributions to write discrimination into the California Constitution being publicly disclosed. The Christianists would love nothing more than to be able to operate and seek to undermine the civil laws anonymously in their quest to build a theocracy. It's always all about them and they always want "special rights" that exempt them from the requirements applied to everyone else. Here are some highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Proposition 8 proponents' complaint that a California campaign-finance disclosure law has led to harassment of same-sex marriage opponents failed to sway a federal judge, who refused Thursday to throw out the law or shield donors' names.
A lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign said it would ask an appeals court to modify or overturn the law, which requires disclosure of all contributors of $100 or more. . . . The federal lawsuit, unrelated to the validity of Prop. 8, was filed Jan. 8 by the ballot measure's sponsoring committee, Protect Marriage. The suit said Internet disclosure of donors' names and other identifying information in state-mandated reports has led to consumer boycotts, picketing and even death threats.
By requiring disclosure, "the government is getting in the middle (of the issue) and saying, 'Here are the people to go after,' " Richard Coleson, a lawyer for the committee, told England. . . . If the Prop. 8 campaign was exempted from disclosure because of reports of harassments of individual donors, said Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, the same case could be made for any controversial initiative. Courts would have to "keep the entire California electorate in the dark as to who was funding these ballot measures," he said. England agreed.
He noted that some of the reprisals reported by the Prop. 8 committee involve legal activities such as boycotts and picketing. Other alleged actions, such as death threats, mailings of white powder and vandalism, may constitute "repugnant and despicable acts" but can be reported to law enforcement, the judge said.
Any desire by donors to remain anonymous is outweighed by the state's authority to require "full and fair disclosure of everyone who's involved in these political campaigns," England said.

1 comment:

Stephen said...

It was the Yes on 8 folks who first started threatening donors.

With usual dishonesty, many are whining that their right to VOTE their conscience is being threatened, which it utter nonsense.