High-tech public shaming?
Proposition 8 proponents who said their supporters have experienced "extensive acts of harassment, including death threats," lost a court bid to block further disclosure of pro-8 financial donors' personal information. They vowed to appeal the decision amid what they said was continuing harassment.
The request by the ProtectMarriage.com -- Yes on 8 committee was made Jan. 29 before U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. in Sacramento. The Yes on Prop 8 campaign has challenged the constitutionality of California's campaign finance laws that compel disclosure of personal information of Prop 8 donors.
England denied the bid for a preliminary injunction to protect the identities of those donors who have contributed $100 to $999 since October 18, 2008.
"We are disappointed that we did not receive the preliminary injunction," said Frank Schubert, Yes on 8 campaign manager. "But this fight is really about how donors to a future campaign will be treated. We are committed to ensuring that supporters of traditional marriage can do so without fear of intimidation and harassment."
James Bopp Jr., the attorney handling the case for Yes on 8, said he will bring the case to a conclusion at the district court level and appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On Feb. 3, Bopp said his firm has been contacted by "more than two dozen" donors who reported they have been harassed since last week's court action against blocking disclosure of new donor reports. "We've seen phone calls, we've seen vandalism, we've seen boycotts," he said.
Schubert said the Yes on 8 committee plans to present new information about alleged harassment to the appellate court.
"Some people have received death threats, others have been forced to give up their employment," he said. A restaurant manager in Los Angeles who donated $100 was forced to resign after the restaurant was picketed, he said.
Supporters of Prop 8 gave $39.3 million in monetary contributions, against $41.1 million for the campaign to defeat the initiative, according to the California Secretary of State's office. Nearly 3,000 donors -- including retirees, doctors, homemakers and engineers, almost all from California -- gave $50 to support what became an election victory Nov. 4.
In their move to block further release of financial data, the Yes on 8 committee maintained that these small donors are vulnerable to intimidation.
"There has been a systematic effort to intimidate and harass donors to the Prop 8 campaign," said Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com. "The latest example of this is the publication by our opponents of Google maps showing the home or office location of Yes on 8 contributors. We are asking the federal court to stop this harassment and enjoin the state from forcing further disclosure of our contributors until the court can assess the constitutionality of California's campaign disclosure rules as applied to our committee."
The suit notes that groups such as Californians Against Hate exist for the primary purpose of identifying and taking action against supporters of Proposition 8. The suit cited numerous examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards suffered by supporters of Prop 8, including death threats.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when there is a reasonable probability that disclosure of contributor information will result in harassment of contributors to a political organization, the organization can be exempted from further disclosure of contributor information," Prentice said.
The suit alleges that California's Political Reform Act is unconstitutional on numerous grounds, including the right of contributors to exercise their First Amendment rights free from threats, harassment and reprisals. The suit also challenges the act's requirements that committees report all contributors of $100 or more as unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The $100 threshold has not been increased for nearly 30 years.
Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, had this to say about the ruling:
"The court did the right thing by upholding California's 35-year-old Political Reform Act. The law requires that all contributors of $100 and above to state campaigns be reported and available to the public. Every California campaign has abided by this law for over three decades.
"It is truly unfortunate that in the heat of a campaign donors are subjected to any undue attention. This has sadly been the case on both sides of last November's highly emotional Proposition 8 campaign. But the law passed by the voters in 1974 has served our state well all these years and must remain in place.
"The Executive Board of ProtectMarriage.com, who filed this lawsuit, sent a letter to many major donors to No on 8 - Equality California threatening to expose them and take action against their companies unless they gave to the Yes on 8 campaign. Now they complain of harassment?
"Gay and lesbian donors fighting several anti gay initiatives in California beginning with the 1978 Briggs Initiative (Prop 6) have contributed to these campaigns in fear of job loss and being outed to their families. No exemption from the law was ever requested."
By Rick DelVecchio
From February 13, 2009 issue of Catholic San Francisco
