Recently, U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled that the list of financial supporters of Proposition 8 (the anti-same-sex-marriage act) must be made public. This is mandated by the California Political Reform Act of 1974. The full list of those who donated $36 million that ended same-sex marriage rights has been posted to the California Secretary of State’s official website. A simplified version of that information can be seen at the Californians Against Hate “Dishonor Roll”.
These people need to learn that bigotry has consequences.
How would you like it if a ruling of a federal court were to make the names and addresses and occupations of everyone on this board public? After all, most people here were all out for Barack Obama, and a strong case could be made that this was an important in-kind contribution for him?
Would you be comfortable with that, then?
I only ask because political speech seems to be the next area of litigation - and as you seem to engage in plenty of it, I’d like to assess your willingness to be harrassed or even sued.
Personally, I’m of the mind that reasonable limits below which anonymity may be maintained are useful here - just as anonymity is useful oftentimes in political speech.
Is there a Federal equivalent to the California Political Reform Act of 1974 and has the SDMB provided any financial or in-kind support for a refeerendum or election?
My guess is that my name can be found on any list of donors to any campaign which I have supported. (I also suspect that if the proponents of Prop 8 wanted to publish a list of donors who were trying to “wreck” the family, they would have equal right and access to that information.)
If there were a law on the books that said that members of internet based discussion groups were to have their information reported to the secretary of state and available as public record, then no it wouldn’t bother me at all.
This isn’t about speech, this is about political contributions which are public record under the law. The judge really couldn’t have ruled any other way from my understanding of what happened.
So again - if I were to sue claiming that the Reader’s website activities constituted an in-kind contribution and demanded the names of subscribers (who after all donated money) and the identities of prominent posters - you’d be fine with this? Have you disclosed your identity here prior to this? Did you do so to everyone on the boards or were you careful about it?
Just something to think of as we all look to out each other.
The only one I found on the list that will affect my business at all is the CEO of Cinemark who donated $9,999. Won’t be going there for movies anymore. I’ll shoot an email off to let them know.
This is nothing new - it is just that Prop 8 seems to have REALLY brought out the anger, more than other props or candidates in the past. What amazes me is the people who are shocked to find out about this. I have been checking out Opensecrets.org for years.
The only issues I have heard is the publication of home addresses of donors. I have a few physician friends who were dismayed to find out that their home information was now in the public sphere. They did NOT want that to happen, as they deal with drug seekers on a regular basis. They have both now foresworn donations until they can find a way to keep their home address private.
For me, it raises another interesting issue. I paid a couple bucks to go to a private party for Pat Buchanan years ago. I don’t donate usually, so that is one of the only publicly listed donations in my name. I would hate for someone to make a knee jerk evaluation of me based on one event.
Cute. What does that have to do with what I’ve posted on these boards? (Though it does amuse me to think that you meant the roman consul who died some 2500 years ago…I doubt he would care at all. )
I’d laugh as you wasted your money on a lawyer silly enough to take the case. (Unless you are also contending that the posts by McCain supporters were actually false flag efforts by Obama supporters designed to make McCain look bad?) Rather than a “strong case,” no case could seriously be made that any “in kind” support was provided by this board.
If I donate money to a campaign, I expect that at some point my name is available to either the supporters or opponents of that campaign and is, effectively, public information.
And Prop 8 won. I see nothing stopping the supporters, (who make up a majority of the California electorate), from posting an equivalent list of contributors to the opposition under a declaration that those people and organizations are a threat to the family.
Now, in the greater picture, I see this as a potential erosion of civility with people carrying on feuds over elections long after the votes have been counted, but I see no reason to oppose this on legal grounds. (I will also note that the first several times I saw this tactic employed, it was by people on the political Right, so I do not know if the Left is finally catching up to the Right’s tactics or if I have simply spent too much of my life in areas dominated by the political Right.)
In fact, the monetary contributions of people and organizations who opposed Prop 8 are also listed on the California SOS site.
As for this board, a) you would find it a hard case to make that the primary purpose is to campaign for Barack Obama and b) many people posting here are not paying members and therefore could not be considered monetary donors even if you could make that case.
“Here’s a list of people who have given money to support gay adoption. These people need to learn that handing children over to perverts has consequences.”
“Here’s a list of people who have given money to support abortion rights. These people need to learn that murder has consequences.”
“Here’s a list of people who have given money to oppose the President’s foreign policy. These people need to learn that treason has consequences.”
Still like the sound of that?
If you’re still talking about campaign contributions, then yes. It doesn’t matter if I disagree with their positions, they should still be able to make an informed decision as to which business they do and do not wish to patronize.
Putting my name on a list of people who support the ideas that I support? I’m cool with that. Why? Because I’m PROUD of the ideas and people I support, not ashamed. If you don’t want people around you to know you supported a law that passed, you need to rethink what it means to support a cause.
If you want to be anonymous, keep your support limited to the vote.
I think that Mr. Moto was referring to Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, who published the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym Publius.
)