Campaign donor secrecy bid rebuffed

October 21, 2011

An attempt to keep secret the identities of California political campaign donors was throttled Thursday by a federal judge. [SacramentoBee]

Proponents of Prop 8, a voter-approved initiative to ban same-sex marriages, argued that they were harassed by political opponents, but U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. denied what amounted to a challenge to the state’s campaign disclosure law.

The ruling is widely expected to be appealed. Attorneys for the state contended that making public the identities of campaign donors is necessary to an informed electorate. Nearly three years ago, England denied the first attempt by to cloak identities of donors who made contributions in the final days of the campaign.

California law requires the disclosure of the identity of anyone who contributes $100 or more to a campaign.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Interesting also that righties are now pushing to have a fertilized human egg be designated as a “person”. Add in corporations and I think you have some serious word definition bending. Why does it hurt to let gays call their union “marriage”?

Why do gays want same-sex marriage? I’ve been married 15 years: it’s been the SAME SEX the whole time! It’s not all it’s cracked up to be…

(ok, *drum-snare*)

Right. So where are the names? Could be nothing, could be interesting. Looks like a job for uncoveredSLO! We now know the salary and pension of every public worker in California, although only the top paid ones get featured on these sites.

Politicians don’t want us to know who owns them and they wonder why both the cons and libs can’t stand them. I want to know who owns this country, it certainly isn’t the highest taxed citizens,,,us.

A High Five on that statement: “who owns this country, it certainly isn’t the highest taxed citizens,,,us.”

It’s funny how prejudice people can be when it’s about something we want or don’t want. For instance, I’m shaking my head at myself because I (as many know) do not approve of gay’s using the “WORD MARRIAGE”, I think they should have all the same rights but should call their union a different word. As such, I would like to see the contributors who financed prop8 protected! I wish I could demand that all contributors of campaign contributions must be identified except for the prop 8 people!!! What the heck, we all know it was primarily the Mormon Church anyway.

Either way, it’s a good thing for everybody that I’m not a judge or running the show. Which leads me to wonder how many politicians are like I am? I think there are a lot of them and they shouldn’t be in office anymore than I should be, not because I don’t agree with myself but because I would have a hard dispensing even rulings. I don’t think I knew that until I just caught myself! Yes, this was a good , honest and fair ruling.

Cindy.. If the state recognizes two people as having a marriage, but refuses to recognize two other people form having a marriage, then this violates equal protection under the law. This leaves us with only one real option – remove marriage from the state laws altogether and replace it with “civil union.” This will prevent states from officially recognizing a gay “marriage.” I am gay, but I have no interest in making a big deal out of a word. I think the gay organizations that are insisting on this are just trying to stir their supporters to keep their funding flow going, and I think the same can be said of the moral conservative groups. No more “marriage” at the state level, no more problem!

I believe that this is all about a WORD, not equal rights. The gay’s know that the word marriage has always applied to an intimate union between a male and female. The gay’s want to play with semantics and insist that they want that word and they refuse to pick another word. It’s all about getting in everyone’s faces and saying they can use that words too and they say they want to be equal but it has nothing to do with being equal. They are different (just like men are woman have different bathrooms- equal but different) and they should use another word and have some respect for the rest of us. They could have had what they wanted long ago (all the rights that married couples have) if they asked for another word with the rights attached to it. They are a bunch of “in your face”jerks in my opinion. That of course doesn’t include you or other gay’s that understand and there are many who don’t have a problem with another word for their legal unions but are caught in the crossfire from the IN YOUR FACE RADICALS.