Thankfully a federal judge is not impressed by the arguments that California's campaign-finance disclosure law has led to "harassment" of the donors behind Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that overturned same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state. The San Francisco Chronicle reports the judge refuses to overturn the law or shield donors' names.
"If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it's a ballot measure," U.S. District Judge Morrison England said after a one-hour hearing in his Sacramento courtroom.
A lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign said it would ask an appeals court to modify or overturn the law, which requires disclosure of all contributors of $100 or more. [...]
He argued that the $100 disclosure requirement - adopted by California voters in 1974 - should be struck down, modified to raise the dollar limits, or at least not applied to Prop. 8's contributors. As a first step, Coleson said, the campaign should be exempted from the state's post-election contribution report, due Monday.
The state's argument: If the Proposition 8 campaign was exempted from disclosure because of reports of harassment of individual donors—which often were legal activities such as boycotting or picketing—the same argument could be made for any controversial initiative. The judge agreed. Lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign say they will appeal
The irony. Anti-gay social conservatives claim "activist judges" stuck down the law to change the definition of marriage. Now the exact same people want "activist judges" to strike down the law so they can hide who financed their anti-gay jihad.
Prop 8 Can't Hide Donor Names [Chron]
Good, they have no problem putting their "faith" into the arena of civil rights, they should have no issues with it being pubic record, guess "faith" isn't enough to let it be known they hate folks and are willing to support it via their pocketbooks.
Posted by: Luther | 30 January 2009 at 11:26
Wow. I can't believe the Yes on 8 people thought they were going to be able to pull this off. It's madness.
I'm glad the judge had some sense.
Posted by: Saeed Jones | 31 January 2009 at 17:00
Judge England was appointed by none other than George W. Bush, and is a person of color. So they really can't use the "activist judge" moniker on him, now can they?
Posted by: Bill | 01 February 2009 at 12:49