A Federal judge in Sacramento yesterday ruled against the Yes on 8 Committee’s motion to protect some of its later donors from public disclosure (due on February 2) because of a persistent, organized campaign of personal and business harassment of prior disclosed donors by supporters of gay marriage, who gleaned the names and addresses of those donors from government records.
The claims made by Yes on 8 are similar to constitutional arguments that won the day in prior cases involving communists and socialists, who claimed they would be harassed and their privacy rights violated if their names and addresses were publicly disclosed by the government in connection with the campaigns of their partys. The Federal Judge in the Yes on 8 case didn’t agree, even though the claims of the Yes on 8 committee were stronger than the other established cases, and supported by real evidence of an organized boycott of businesses and personal harassment of donors who gave as little as $100.
Liberal election lawyers were happy with the result, but concerned that Yes on 8 might have some success by filing an emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit and up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I for one hope Yes on 8 can get the financial support it needs to carry this issue to the Supreme Court. As I have stated before in this column, public disclosure of campaign contributions, though universally popular, is in fact an infringement of a person’s privacy rights. We tolerate it for the "greater good," on balance, of avoiding perceived corruption in the political process. I am not against disclosure of names and addresses of donors to the FPPC or FEC. But I can see real problems with public disclosure of those names by the government where a pattern of privacy infringement and personal and commercial abuse has already been established by the facts. I do hope that Yes on 8 takes it forward and is successful on appeal, as this would be a great blow for privacy rights in general.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am
If Yes on 8 proponents (ProtectMarriage.com) sent letters to some businesses that gave to the “No on 8” campaign threatening to publicize the names of those that did not give the same amount to “Yes on 8” side. they probably would of won their case if they did not do that blunder. They used the same publicly available data they are trying to close down.
Protectmarriage.com behaved like hypocrites in their lawsuit.
And how come the AFA can boycott McDonalds and Pepsi, while No on 8 people shouldnt have the right to boycott Yes on 8 donors and their businesses?
I believe in transparency, but with polarizing initiatives maybe we should have a 4 to 6 month delay which would help cool down both sides of an issue.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Who decides what is a “polarizing” initiative? Not a very good standard. Again, it becomes a constitutional rights issue. Perhaps public disclosure of ALL should be delayed?