Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

UPDATED: Money Hungry Anti-Gay Activists Fight Accountability, Transparency in Prop 8 Court Battle

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White


Photo by theslowlane

Scroll to bottom for update.

A list of donors to the campaign against legalizing gay marriage in California is due out today, after a judge ruled against an injunction filed to keep that list secret last week.

Yes on 8, the group that filed the injunction, consistently reports that donors to the Prop 8 referendum initiative have been on the receiving end of harassment in the form of e-mails and phone calls, though they don't produce any evidence, even anecdotally.

Tom Elias writes for the Press-Telegram in Long Beach, CA that "all that's been reliably documented are a few examples of gays and their supporters staying away from businesses whose owners were Proposition 8 donors. No physical harm whatsoever."

Elias goes on to note that supporters of Prop 8 were the ones making threats during the campaign to people who supported gay marriage, noting the Yes on 8 members were "silent back then about nasty communications by their backers."

Taking a political stand often involves criticism from the other side. Supporters of Prop 8 clearly aren't being manhandled; if they were, you can bet there'd be a huge media blitz about any credible threat or attack.

Furthermore, the list of donors who contributed $1,000 or more (as well as those who donated $100 or more before October 18, 2008) has already been disclosed. Although the Mormon Church is now being investigated for impropriety in its campaign contribution disclosures -- they initially said they contributed around $2,000, when in reality they contributed nearly 100 times that amount -- we already know the extent of the involvement of the major players in this political fight.

So, if all we stand to find out are the people who donated $100 to $999 in the last two weeks of the election cycle, what's the big deal?

Shockingly, it's all about money. Yes on 8's Web site, ProtectMarriage.com, contains this telling passage in a Q&A about the Yes on 8 v. Bowen suit fighting the campaign disclosure requirements:

"This is as much about protecting donors to a future campaign as it is to protecting donors to the Proposition 8 campaign. The unmistakable intent of opponents of Prop 8 is to intimidate donors so that they do not participate in a future campaign to preserve traditional marriage in California."

If businesses feel that their political contributions might hurt their chances of retaining gay customers, they might not donate in the future. Yes on 8 knows that it can always count on the Mormons and others to fund these initiatives. But smaller donors not only help fill the coffers, but also offer a sense of legitimacy and grassroots support. Yes on 8 needs these donors, who are often small business owners vulnerable to losing support from gay customers.

The nonprofit group Californians Against Hate clearly encourages readers to vote with their checkbooks. Besides compiling a comprehensive list of all Prop 8 donors of more than $5,000, they also have organized several boycotts against businesses run by those who oppose gay marriage with significant donations.

On a very basic level, this type of protest makes more of a dent than angry phone calls and e-mails ever will. If your local hotelier or self-storage company owner chooses to spend his or her money on a campaign that denies your rights or the rights of your family members and friends, why help fill their bank account?

While it's all about money on the Prop 8 side, it's all about transparency on the flip side. The law being opposed by the Prop 8 people has supported Californians' right to know who is behind referenda campaigns since the 1970s. There's no reason to overturn it just because some people are afraid of losing a rainbow buck or two.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

UPDATE: The list was officially released this morning. You can see it here.


Much ado about a filing deadline

“Although the Mormon Church is now being investigated for impropriety in its campaign contribution disclosures -- they initially said they contributed around $2,000, when in reality they contributed nearly 100 times that amount -- “ ¶ Just the facts, please. Those who hate my church for its moral stand for traditional marriage can provide their own innuendo. ¶ Accountants work to deadlines, which is why we associate the letters “IRS” with “April 15.” The Church simply filed its report by the same bureaucratic deadline as required of all other participants. The filing had nothing to do with any investigation. http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports ¶ For shock value, you might have noted that the California State Democratic Committee reported, under the same deadline, expenditures of $150,000 in cash and $202,647 on mailers and other in-kind contributions against the measure. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hKiw9iO4JJqxjTDd98GqpwyqDEewD963PUK00 ¶ And we thought this measure was non-partisan! ¶ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (there is no "Mormon Church") gave no cash and reported $189,903.58 in in-kind contributions – less that the California Democratic Party. Every cent of the alleged $20 million attributed to “Mormons” was non tax-deductible, given directly to the campaign, and came from the already-taxed savings of individual citizens. ¶ Under the First Amendment of the Constitution, no campaign finance law will ever require disclosure of the religious affiliation of donors to a political cause. It was a dissident Mormon who created the web site that targeted “outing” of individual donors as Mormons. Disclosure of religious association is a matter of constitutional protection and a privilege held by the member against disclosure. (Church of Hakeem v. Superior Court, CA, 1980). http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/californias-proposition-8-open-season.html ¶ Imagine the furor if donors to the losing side, who put so much stock in the “right of privacy” were “outed” by some web site for any other private affiliation, such as, dare I suggest, for sexual orientation? ¶ For ironic value, you might have also mentioned the final tally: “No on 8” raised $43.3 million; “Yes on 8” raised $39 million; so the losing side raised almost 10% more than the winning side. ¶ Tracy Hall Jr hthalljr'gmail'com

It's Political

If you're not willing to stand up for what you believe and take the consequences, then you can't believe it that strongly. If you don't like gays, then how can it be bad that gays don't patronize you? Of course, those of us that think you're a bigotted jerk won't patronize you either, but that's the price of standing up for your beliefs!

I'm 'straight' and don't support hidden political agendas.

Trying to hide the names of the financial supporters of Prop 8 is wrong. The civil rights movement of the '50s and 60s was successful because people were allowed to use their economic power (boycotts) to promote change. If the blacks in Montgomery were not allowed to boycott the bus system, they might still have to give up seats and ride in the back of the bus. I have a right to shop where I want and use any reason, including the owners political opinions, for avoiding particular business establishments. This includes supporters of Prop 8. I should have access to the list of donors so I can exercise my right of free speech through economic boycott.

I'm gay and Don't support Gay marriage

I am gay and dont support gay marriage..i wouldnt have given any money FOR Prop 8 if i had lived there in CA or here in TX.I get $674/mo poverty-level SSI and as such dont have the funds to put on stuff like that.but i would have voted FOR Prop 8 had i been able to.No hate letters please.Keep your hate to yourself.what i do is my damn business.Dont preach to me about your gay marriage thingy.

I don't believe you.

And you're from TEXAS! Enough said!

Why would you, a gay man,

Why would you, a gay man, not support the right of gays and lesbians to marry? That makes no sense. Yeah, I get it. You don't want to get married. Lots of gays and lesbians don't want to get married, just like lots of straights don't want to get married. The point is, we should have the right to get married IF WE CHOOSE. Our right to get married has no effect on your curmudgeonly life whatsoever. Why deny it to those who cherish the right?