January 9, 2009

Proposition 8 Finance Disclosure Lawsuit Getting A Lot of Attention (Good!)

Backstory:

Prop 8 Supporters Launch Attack on Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws
December 27, 2008

ProtectMarriage.com Files Suit to Hide Identities of Campaign Donors
January 8, 2009

It’s good, very good, to see this story getting a lot of traction; the bigots need to be exposed not only for their bigotry, but for their cowardice, and for their supreme hypocrisy in attempting to use the very “activist judges” against whom they rail when things don’t go their way to — yes — “overturn the will of the people” and make things go their way.

We’re especially glad to see that the Associated Press has picked up on the story (even though we still won’t link to AP), which means it will be in hundreds of newspapers across the nation today.

One MSM article we will link to is in today’s Sacramento Bee, in which Fred Karger responds to some of Yes On 8’s ridiculous accusations:

The 26-page suit alleges that groups such as Californians Against Hate exist for the primary purpose of identifying and taking action against supporters of Proposition 8.

The Southern California group made use of state databases to produce a so-called “Dishonor Roll” of donors to the Yes on 8 campaign.

But Fred Karger, the group’s founder, said it was “untrue” that it threatened and harassed supporters of the measure.

“We have strictly taken public information and posted it,” he said. “We have called boycotts against three companies — all major contributors. Other than that, it’s just public information.”

Karger called the lawsuit “a publicity stunt to gain sympathy” for supporters of Proposition 8.

“Campaign reporting has been in effect since 1974, and it keeps the system honest,” he said. “It’s something we support even though for 30 years gay people were harassed for making political contributions to fight discrimination.”

Of course, the story has hit the blogosphere, far and wide; below are links to just a few of the best takes (I won’t excerpt my wife’s short, to-the-point post, which deserves the full read for full impact), beginning with our favorite of the moment, from Popehat:

It’s Not Judicial Tyranny When We Do It

The Yes on Proposition 8 campaign relied heavily on the argument that the California Supreme Court engaged in “judicial tyranny” when it ruled that California marriage law violated the California Constitution to the extent that it prohibited same-sex marriage. Judicial tyranny, we are often told by some political groups, involves black-robed tyrants ignoring the Will of the People by striking down democratically enacted laws based on an analysis of constitutional rights.

Now the Yes on 8 campaign would like you to know that not all judicial tyranny is bad.

The Protect Marriage Coalition is now suing to overturn democratically enacted California law — specifically, the law that requires public disclosure of donors to California propositions — based on the theory that the law violates donors’ rights under First Amendment, because it leads to donors being harassed. … It’s just amusing that the people who have yelled the loudest about black-robed tyrants overturning the will of the people are now asking for exactly that. Unapologetic naked hypocrisy, like many human foibles, is funny. …

You didn’t hear any howls of outrage about “black-robed tyrants” from conservatives when the Supreme Court struck down a democratically enacted firearms statute in D.C. v. Heller and announced, for the first time, that the Second Amendment confers individual rights. The “OMG judicial tyranny” crowd has a relationship with judicial review rather like Rush Limbaugh’s relationship with the ACLU — happy to shit on it 99% of the time, happy to accept its help when it comes riding in to support your noisy fat ass from government overreaching in a dope case.

Not to mention that some of the justifications offered by the Yes on Prop 8 litigants are rather pathetic:

For example, “Decl. of John Doe #4 (received email that read “I AM BOYCOTTING YOUR ORGANIZATION AS A RESULT OF YOUR SUPPORT OF PROP 8”)”

The choice of venue is also odd, in light of the Protect Marriage Coalition’s stated views on democratic integrity. Say what you want about the California Supreme Court, but it is made up of justices appointed by governors appointed by the people of California, subject to removal by the voters of California during reconfirmation elections, interpreting the California constitution — which in turn is enacted by democratic process in California. Yet the Protect Marriage folks have chosen to file in federal court in Sacramento, leaving the resolution of the matter to a judge appointed for life by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate and thereafter not facing any meaningful democratic impediment. Odd, really. It’s almost as if the Protect Marriage Coalition knows perfectly well that its rhetoric was bullshit.

And then there’s the substance. The Yes on 8 folks think it is terrible, terrible, that donors to Yes on 8 can be harassed or abused or oppressed or annoyed. Yet the Yes on 8 campaign itself sent letters to donors to No on 8 threatening them with public scrutiny if they didn’t cough up hush money…

Michael-In-Norfolk:

Personally, I believe that if someone is afraid to be identified with the causes and issues they support, then perhaps they ought not make a contribution. Not so with the Christianist/Mormon cry babies. Not only are they liars, but now we know that they are cowards as well who want to be able to anonymously take away the civil rights of other citizens. Such a system of anonymous donors is frightening and dangerous for democracy. No doubt they’d like to bring back courts of Star Chamber for gays and other minorities they don’t like as well.

Robert in Monterey:

One wonders if they’re going to use themselves as an example of why the laws should be tossed.

Further, in yet another act of hypocrisy, the very people claiming that courts should not overturn “the will of the voters” are suing to undo the outcome of the Political Reform Act of 1974 - which, you guessed it, was passed by voters that year as Proposition 9. …

[Comment, dkirk:] Listing all the levels of hypocracy in this maneuver is a daunting task. …

1) Going to court to overturn a ballot iniative when you just finished a campaign decrying a court’s overturning a ballot iniative.

2) Most of these folks support government reform like term limits, and yet they here oppose political reform designed to maked the process more open.

3) Using voter contributions to intimidate supporters of the other side is only bad when someone uses it AGAINST your supporters.

4) If you go to their campaign website, they also claim that the distribution of harrassing flyers is part of the grounds for invalidating campaign disclosure laws. I wonder how this goes along with their repeated campaigns against Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

5) ‘threats to ruin businesses’ are a part of their complaint as well. What about the Disney boycott, or the Ford boycott, etc?

Box Turtle Bulletin:

It’s amusing to note that they are specifically asking that only those who supported Proposition 8 (those holding “similar views”) be excused from obeying reporting requirements. One might almost forget that it was this campaign that sent extortion letters to opponents of the Proposition.

This may seem odd at first. After all, these records have been downloaded and stored by scores of gay individuals and groups. It would take little effort for them to become public knowledge again immediately. …

That’s an awful lot of expense and effort to go through on the off chance that the courts rule in their favor. Something makes me think that there is perhaps a bombshell hidden in the new reports, something that the campaign does not want to go public.

There’s plenty out there well worth reading today; we’ll link to more later.

Next, some flashbacks from our own pages here at the Newswire, which illustrate quite plainly that Proposition 8 supporters were attempting to hide their identities long before the official Yes On 8 camp filed suit. In retrospect, these incidents foretold the tale, whether anyone realized it or not:

In November, in a few short paragraphs buried within a much longer press release, Fred Karger made this characteristically eagle-eyed observation, which we titled, “CEOs Hiding Proposition 8 Donations Behind Wives’ Skirts?“:

More Reporting Questions on Yes on 8 Donors

One of our crack researchers discovered that several major contributors to Yes on 8 had put down “retired” or “homemaker” under occupation when in fact they appear to be employed. In many instances these contributors show up as owners or CEOs of their companies. Also, when checking more closely there is an unusually high number of homemakers making five- and six-figure contributions to Yes on 8. Could it be that their husbands did not want their names connected to the Yes on 8 campaign?

Steve Largent’s Wife Contributed $2,000 to Yes on 8

A good example of spouses contributing is the $2,000 contribution of Terry Largent. She is the wife of former Congressman and Seattle Seahawks football star, Steve Largent. Steve Largent is now the President & CEO of CTIA The Wireless Association. CTIA is the Washington, DC based international lobbying and trade association for all the major wireless phone companies. The Largents live in Arlington, Virginia, and Steve joined the Board of Directors of James Dobson?s Focus on the Family in 2003 after he left Congress.

Wife of Sharp Healthcare’s CEO Gave $2,350 to Yes on 8

Mike Murphy heads San Diego’s largest hospital and biggest employer. His wife Sandra gave four separate contributions to Yes on 8 between March 10 and October 24, 2008 totaling $2,350. She listed her occupation and employer as “none.” Maybe this was done in order to not draw any attention to her husband.

More recently, while researching Proposition 8 donors for the upcoming database (yes, I’m still working on it), I’ve been getting a kick out of the weird ways some donors attempted to hide their identities when filling out the donation form (I mean aside from listing their employer as “God”) such as one Mr. James Kaupanger who “fills in the blanks for both employer and occupation as: ‘WHY ARE YOU ASKING THIS?????????‘”

Meanwhile — and especially if the Prop 8 suit shows any promise of success whatsoever — expect to see similar actions in both Florida and Arizona, where the anti-gays have been trying to hide their donations to the anti-marriage amendments in those states:

Florida Amendment 2 Proponents: You’re All A Bunch of Spineless Chickens
October 22, 2008

Why is Arizona Allowing Proposition 102 Backers to Sidestep State Election Contribution Rules?
December 31, 2008

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Permalink | |