As you said, these sites got very little coverage in the Press . . .It's also worth considering that if these sites were publicized widely, that might put the people whose names appear on them in jeopardy.
Allen,
Actually, the websites did get a fair amount of coverage in the mainstream press. If there is another referendum on Proposition 8 in 2010, I suspect that we will see a significant decrease in the number of people donating money in support of the proposition, which will encourage other interest groups to mine donor lists for the purpose of organizing harassment campaigns against their opponents. In the future, contributing to political campaigns may become a hazardous activity.
While it does not specifically mention any of the sites by name, the following NYT article was fairly typical of the coverage:
Marriage Ban Donors Feel Exposed by List
By JESSE McKINLEY
New York Times
Published: January 18, 2009
Arrows on an online map point to the addresses of Proposition 8 supporters in the San Francisco area and across the country.
__________
SAN FRANCISCO — In many ways it is a typical map, showing states, highways, cities and streets.
But also dotting the online display are thousands of red arrows, marking spots from Bryn Mawr, Pa., to Jamacha, Calif., identifying the addresses of donors who supported Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in California.
It is exactly those arrows that concern supporters of the measure, who say they have been regularly harassed since the election — with threatening e-mail messages and sometimes boycotts of their businesses.
“Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the proposition. “And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.”
So chilling, apparently, that supporters have filed suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento seeking a preliminary injunction of a state election law that requires donors of $100 or more to disclose their names, addresses, occupations and other personal information. In particular, the suit seeks to stop the final filing for the 2008 election, which is due Jan. 31. That filing includes donations made in the closing days of the campaign, when the proposition surged to victory.
James Bopp Jr., a lawyer from Indiana who filed the lawsuit on the behalf of Protect Marriage, said the harassment of Proposition 8 supporters violated their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.
“The cost of transparency cannot be discouragement of people’s participation in the process,” said Mr. Bopp, who has argued several prominent cases challenging campaign-finance laws in California and other states. “The highest value in the First Amendment is speech, and some amorphous idea about transparency cannot be used to subvert those rights.”
The election law in question, the Political Reform Act of 1974, was approved by California voters as Proposition 9, and gay rights advocates say there is rich irony in supporters of Proposition 8 opposing the earlier ballot measure.
“They believe in the will of the people if it’s in tune with what they believe,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, marriage project director with Lambda Legal, the gay rights legal organization, in Los Angeles.
Opponents of Proposition 8 are also suspicious of the intent of trying to prevent donors from being identified. “Do they want to hide something?” said Shannon P. Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.
Mr. Schubert insisted that there was “no smoking gun” and that the filing would show only “modest in-kind contributions” from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church members contributed millions to the “Yes on 8” campaign, and the California Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating accusations that the Mormon leadership neglected to report a battery of nonmonetary contributions, including phone banks, a Web site and online commercials on the behalf of Proposition 8.
The lawsuit is just one part of the continuing legal wrangling over Proposition 8, whose constitutionality is being reviewed by the State Supreme Court. The court legalized same-sex marriage in May, a decision that was overturned by Proposition 8.
The court is expected to hear arguments on the proposition as soon as March, and will probably also decide the fate of some 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed in the state.
Several prominent groups filed or signed on to briefs in recent days expressing opposition to Proposition 8, including civil rights and women’s rights organizations, labor and religious groups, and Google, which created the mapping technology.
In his suit, which is also being argued by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, Mr. Bopp alleges a wide range of acts against supporters, including “death threats, acts of domestic terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property, harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts.”
In one instance, a supporter found a flier in his neighborhood calling him a bigot and listing his employer. In another, white powder was sent to a Mormon temple and a facility run by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic group, which contributed more than $1 million in support of Proposition 8. Other supporters, including the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, have been forced to resign because of their backing of the measure, while some businesses have been boycotted because of Proposition 8.
Mr. Bopp also said that the level set under California’s campaign law for public disclosure, anything above $100, was too low.
“There certainly would be an amount that would influence more than a few voters,” he said. “But it’s way above $100.”
Opponents of Proposition 8 have condemned any attacks on supporters, but noted that those claiming harassment are already protected by laws. “Violence and vandalism are illegal, and those laws should be enforced,” Ms. Pizer said. “And sadly people on both sides of this issue have experienced some of that.”
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
New York Times story link |
