Prop 8 Supporters File Suit to Keep Donors Anonymous – A Terrible Idea, But They May Win

In the months since the passage of Prop 8, many people gave money to the Yes-On-8 campaign have found themselves publicly criticized and their businesses boycotted. Some people claim to have been threatened with violence.   The Yes-On-8ers have filed a lawsuit in a Sacramento federal district court.  The suit asks the court to overturn provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 which requires the public disclosure of the names and addresses of $100-or-more donors to ballot measures and candidates.  They claim that this  disclosure and harassment combo violates their 1st Amendment rights.

We do not condone threats of violence against Yes-On-8ers, but at the same time, this lawsuit goes way too far.  Forget Prop 8, think about the effects of this on other ballot propositions.  2008’s  Prop 10 would have used state bonds to reimburse purchasers of natural gas vehicles; the  measure was funded by T. Boone Pickens, the largest supplier of natural gas in the country.  Or what about Prop. 6 -a so-called anti-crime bill funded by a guy charged with drug-trafficking.  This is information people should have access to.

Boycotts are part of the risk of owning a business. Threats of violence should be handled by the criminal justice system. The problem isn’t availability of information.

But do the Yes-On-8ers have a case?  Election law expert Richard Hasen tells the SF Chronicle:

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld mandatory campaign disclosure laws in 1976, including a requirement to identify donors of as little as $10. That ruling cited the public’s need to know about possible sources of corruption of political candidates, but comparable reasons also support disclosure of contributors to ballot measures, said Richard Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an authority on election law.

“If I hear that a ballot measure is being funded by Exxon or backed by the Sierra Club, that may be all I need to know to decide how to vote,” he said.Even after an election, Hasen said, contribution reports may reveal political corruption, allow researchers to study campaign financing and suggest ways to improve it, as well as provide a check on the truthfulness of campaign committees.

On the other hand, he said, organizations like the Prop. 8 committee may have a case for exemption from disclosure under a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Socialist Workers Party to conceal its contributors because of past attacks and threats.

Lawyers in Thursday’s suit cited the Socialist Workers case in seeking court orders that would excuse Prop. 8 supporters from filing a report of donors of $100 or more on Jan. 31 and require the state to remove any pre-election financial disclosure reports from the public records.

Ya gotta love the Yes-On-8ers taking the same side as the Socialist Workers Party.

Here’s a copy of the lawsuit:

Protect Marriage Complaint