Oct.21.2011
1:53 pm
by Laura
The OTHER Prop 8 Trial - No anonymous donors
We all know about the Federal court case Perry v. Schwarzenegger making its way through the appeals process, the one addressing whether California’s constitution, as amended by Proposition 8, violates U.S. Constitutional protections. But there is also another Prop 8-related case, ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, addressing whether donors to proposition campaigns should be able to donate anonymously.
Plaintiffs argued that donors were harassed and that the $100 cumulative threshold for disclosing donor identification is too low. The state defense team argued that publicizing campaign donor identities is critical for an informed electorate.
U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr. ruled in favor of the state. The ruling is expected to be repealed.
The Sacramento Bee’s Capitol Alert blog reports:
California law requires the disclosure of the identity of anyone who contributes $100 or more to a campaign. ProtectMarriage.com said the $100 limit was too low, and it claimed it qualified for an exception to disclosure laws once granted by the U.S. Supreme Court to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Socialist Workers Party.
England was skeptical throughout the hearing. The Socialist Workers Party involved relatively few people, he said, and belonging to the NAACP in the early 1950s “could cause you to be killed.” In contrast, he said, Proposition 8 proponents not only enjoyed the support of millions of people, but prevailed in the election.
The judge read from a batch of declarations in which people claimed yard signs were stolen, that they received harassing phone calls, or, in one case, that people protested outside someone’s business. “That’s the extent of what happened,” he said.
The docket for the case, including the January 2009 order denying a preliminary injunction on disclosures is available here. The October 20, 2011 ruling had not been uploaded to that site as of today’s post (it may be available on PACER, I haven’t checked).
Filed in Uncategorized |
4 Responses to “The OTHER Prop 8 Trial - No anonymous donors”
Another report with a few different details.
People knew when they made those contributions that they would be made public record, and, so they should be made public record. And, it isn’t as if the people and companies who contributed to the No on 8 campaign did not also have signs taken, etc. Yet, I’m not aware of the No on 8 side asking for donors names to not be made public — please correct me if I’m wrong about this.
Not related to this particular issue surrounding Prop 8 but about making the tapes public, here is information I got from Prop 8 trial tracker:
“Just now, the 9th Circuit granted an emergency stay requested by proponents of Prop 8. The stay is on Judge Ware’s earlier decision to release the recordings of the trial to the public. The court also set a week on which to hear arguments on the matter.
Principal briefs are due on November 14th and reply briefs due no later than November 28th. The 9th Circuit panel will then hear oral arguments the week of December 5th, with a specific date to be set later.”
I tend to agree with Sheryl’s comment. California’s laws concerning campaign donations are no secret. If you don’t want people to know that you donated a sum greater than $100 to a campaign intended to remove rights from law-abiding citizens for no good reason, then don’t make the donation. If you are going to make that donation, be ready to deal with whatever the consequences may be, whether it’s loss of business, pickets or whatever. You can’t have it both ways.
Interestingly, as the information starts to come to light, we discover that the vast majority of NOM’s donations come from two sources. http://washingtonindependent.com/116452/nom%E2%80%99s-2010-financial-records-raise-questions for those who wish to see more.
I have my own speculations about what those two sources might be, but I’ll await further “revelation,” as it were.