Prop 8 donors file suit to hide identities

[Bill]

From metafilter... post has already been put into some earlier discussion ... looks like the backlash has got the christians scrambling.

http://justinmclachlan.com/09/01/pro...donor-records/

Of course the wall street journal is all upset about the meany homos.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123025779370234773.html

And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the federal level renders people's fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 -- California's recently passed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and a woman -- is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their financial support was made public and put online.

For example, when it was discovered that Scott Eckern, director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater in Sacramento, had given $1,000 to Yes on 8, the theater was deluged with criticism from prominent artists. Mr. Eckern was forced to resign.

Richard Raddon, the director of the L.A. Film Festival, donated $1,500 to Yes on 8. A threatened boycott and picketing of the next festival forced him to resign. Alan Stock, the chief executive of the Cinemark theater chain, gave $9,999. Cinemark is facing a boycott, and so is the gay-friendly Sundance Film Festival because it uses a Cinemark theater to screen some of its films.

A Palo Alto dentist lost patients as a result of his $1,000 donation. A restaurant manager in Los Angeles gave a $100 personal donation, triggering a demonstration and boycott against her restaurant. The pressure was so intense that Marjorie Christoffersen, who had managed the place for 26 years, resigned.

These are just a few instances that have come to light, and the ramifications are still occurring over a month after the election. The larger point of this spectacle is its implications for the future: to intimidate people who donate to controversial campaigns.

The question is not whether Prop. 8 should have passed, but whether its supporters (or opponents) should have their political preferences protected in the same way that voters are protected. Is there any reason to think that the repercussions Mr. Eckern faced for donating to Prop. 8 would be different if it were revealed that instead of donating, he had voted for it?

Indeed, supporters of Prop. 8 engaged in pressure tactics. At least one businessman who donated to "No on 8," Jim Abbott of Abbott & Associates, a real estate firm in San Diego, received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company's name if he didn't also donate to the "Yes on 8" campaign.

[chadknowslaw]

Political preferences ARE private. It is easy to keep that preference private and still vote.

Financial funding of advertising campaigns is NOT a requirement to have a preference; anyone that wants to keep their support private can choose not to donate.


Those that want to keep their names private AND donate money will lose this battle.

[maxx68]

Get them!!!!!

Wonder how many of those names belong to closeted self-haters?

[DonMike]

I think the thing that really makes this a heated issue is the fact that it wasn't simply about spreading information and letting people make an informed vote. It was about a campaign that used lies and deceit to further an agenda and the people who openly supported that. Had the ads simply said, "we believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, please support that" and the prop won then I think we would have been disappointed and tried to come up with a better solution. But since all those people supported a campaign that used such underhanded tactics, we feel bullied and attacked and this is our way of attacking back. I just worry about the religious right using these same tactics against us. Of course if a bunch of right wing religious nutjobs decide to boycott Rage, Out Magazine and Bed, Bath & Beyond, I think we'll survive.

[gaybucks_chip]

I think it's really funny that all these people who are doing "God's work" aren't willing to take the heat for their actions. This is yet another example of integrity at work.

If these people had a shred of integrity, they'd say "This was my decision, I chose to do it, and I will take whatever consequences come of that decision, because God led me to do this."

But they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to lie, cheat, and steal their way to an unjust decision, and then have their participation in this bigoted and small-minded action hidden.

I really hope the courts throw this out quickly.

[Lee]

Maybe if they are allowed to hide their identities we could boycott the US legal system to make our points $0.02

Regards,

Lee

[badpuppyben]

... I just worry about the religious right using these same tactics against us. Of course if a bunch of right wing religious nutjobs decide to boycott Rage, Out Magazine and Bed, Bath & Beyond, I think we'll survive.

The problem is they've already been using these tactics against us. You should see all the protests we see down here in Orlando during gay pride events, including the "unofficial" gay days at Disney. How many times have they threatened to boycott Disney and it's products just for allowing it to happen?

I think the problem is they can dish it out but they can't take it.

[DonMike]

The problem is they've already been using these tactics against us. You should see all the protests we see down here in Orlando during gay pride events, including the "unofficial" gay days at Disney. How many times have they threatened to boycott Disney and it's products just for allowing it to happen?

I think the problem is they can dish it out but they can't take it.

You do have a point there. I've seen them try to do Disney boycotts before. The thing is that the more they boycott something the more we'll support it. And they can't really boycott a lot of our stuff because they don't support them anyway.