Prop Hate donors demand special exemption from disclosure laws

[ColbertWatcher]

From the Los Angeles Times
Brown, ethics commission seek to preserve disclosure laws on Prop. 8 donors
Supporters seek to conceal personal information, saying they have been harassed by opponents of ban on gay marriage.
By Jessica Garrison and Patrick McGreevy
January 24, 2009

Supporters of the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage went to court earlier this month seeking to throw out a decades-old state law that requires the names and personal information of campaign contributors be made public.

(...)

"We have nothing to hide here," said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Proposition 8. "We are really trying to protect the privacy of people."

(...)

"Political democracy demands open debate, including prompt disclosure of the identities of campaign donors," Brown said.

(...)

Most campaign donors have already had their information made public, but supporters are asking a judge to stay publication of the names and personal information of donors who gave $100 to $999 in the two weeks before the election.

So, the hateful people who wanted to deny some citizens equal protections under the law want to continue to deny those same citizens their right to protest.

I wonder what's so special about those people who donated in the last two weeks before the election?

(EDITED SUBJECT LINE FOR ACCURACY!)

[williesgirl]

1. Let em all eat shit publicly. Don't exempt them from the law. rec'd

[ColbertWatcher]

2. Thank you.

I just find it the epitome of entitlement that they expect all laws to bend to their will.

[Donnachaidh]

3. too cowardly to be called out for their bigotry?

F*ck them.

If they have such strong convictions, let them stand up in the light of day and FACE the folks they want to keep down. OWN UP to their *beliefs*, and let them face the consequences.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. Exactly.

They just don't seem to understand consequences.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

[pleah]

4. Oh, so now they want to be exempt from public scrutiny.

To damn bad! You shit your bed, now wallow in it.

[ColbertWatcher]

7. The GOP sure do love secrecy! n/t

[tbyg52]

6. They knew, or should have known, what the law was. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

8. They knew or should have known not to put rights up to a vote!

They knew or should have known that the way they got Prop H8 on the ballot would be challenged (which i believe it is).

There were so many things wrong with Prop H8 and its supporters; this just adds to the pile.

[Ian David]

9. The 56 signers of The Declaration of Independence would call them pussies. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

12. Good point. So much for these people proudly supporting their beliefs. n/t

[DCKit]

10. I wonder if someone is worried about losing their tax-exempt status..... n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

13. Interesting point.

GOPers have always hated data because it always shows how wrong they are about everything and it reveals all their filthy little connections.

I love that Obama restored the Freedom of Information Act too.

[BuelahWitch]

11. Cockroaches also like to work in the dark

Shine a big old spotlight on those H8ters and watch 'em scurry.

[ColbertWatcher]

15. Very true.

They were betting that their investment in the judiciary will keep their secrets forever.

I'm hoping the law wins this one.

[GinaMaria]

14. wonder if they want the names of those who opposed Prop8

to remain public? Isn't this the same group that went to businesses that donated to No on 8 and told them to give Yes on 8 an equal or greater donation or they would start a boycott or negative PR campaign or some other form of harassment.

Reminds me of the childhood lesson... Don't dish out what you can't take in.....

[ColbertWatcher]

16. The Prop H8 donors are out-numbered and they know it.

I'm willing to bet that there are more Prop H8 supporters that there were donors but, more people against the idea of Prop H8 overall than people who actually voted.

Of course, they will discriminate against people who didn't support their wedge issue--they expected to win and burned just as many bridges as strange bedfellows.

They're feeling the backlash now and I agree with you that they will (and probably already are) plan revenge against those who opposed their little plan.

But, see this is exactly why the rights of a minority should not be put up to a vote.

If they learned anything, I hope they learned that small lesson.

[GinaMaria]

28. They won a battle but

lost so much more. For one, the Mormon 'brand' they have worked so hard to establish is tainted and tarnished. The Catholics don't look so good either. They have been exposed as people who work to take rights away from others. What did they think was going happen? Everyone would honor them as heroes? So besides being hateful they may also be delusional. Rights should never be put to a vote. They are rights. You are born with them you don't get them only if the majority says OK.

Seriously, if the tables were turned and there was a ballot proposition to eliminate rights of extreme religious zealots, would you vote for it? I wouldn't. It sounds insane to even consider it a possibility, doesn't it. Yet they have no problem doing this others.

I love the line that they 'were just participating in the democratic process'. What part of the democratic process involves taking away other people's human rights?

What a bunch of cowards. They strong armed donors on the other side of this issue, but can't take the exposure they exploited. Think about when someone bullies or flings insults... do they really make their target look bad or are they simply revealing their own ugliness? The real majority got a good look at these jerks and saw them for what they really are. Now they want to hide. Leave them in the light of day. Did they think they could spread their hatred and not really own it? Worse than cowards, they are admitting they knew what they did was wrong but did it anyway.

[ColbertWatcher]

29. They also forgot about the disclosure part of the democratic process!

They seem to cherry-pick everything!

[Ernesto]

17. fuck'em

they got it comin'... Let the sun shine all over them!

[ColbertWatcher]

18. It always seems like they want to change the rules when things aren't going their way.

Doesn't it?

[tbyg52]

24. It is their defining quality. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

25. Very true. n/t

[PerpetuallyDazed]

30. true that!

light is a good sanitizer ;)

[Lerkfish]

19. although I understand this, from a chickensh!t's POV

how some jerk doesn't want to be known as an out and out bigot (too bad for that chickenshit)

but it makes no sense legally. If some of the donors have been outed (pun intended), and the ONLY qualification for not outing others is the amount they donated, then look for a massive lawsuit for unequal protection.

of course, it'll be chickenshits suing chickenshits, and it would be darn entertaining to watch.


(evil grin)

[ColbertWatcher]

20. It is a chickenshitty thing to do. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

21. OPPS! LINK TO STORY!

I forgot to link to the original story (posted in the LA Times)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-gay-marriage24-2009jan24,0,566871.story

[MadMaddie]

22. Too bad....the days of operating in secrecy are over.

It's time for them to accept responsibility for their beliefs.

[ColbertWatcher]

26. Yes, finally! n/t

[Kixel]

23. The GOP mantra has been money=free speech

Fine. They used their voice, now they bear the repercussions. You can't have it both ways.

If you can't be proud of saying you are a bigot, then don't throw your money after bigoted causes. That book they always talk about mentions something about reaping what you sew...too bad they never bother reading it!

[ColbertWatcher]

27. Well said! n/t

[JNelson6563]

31. haha They want to stay in the closet

while forcing others to do so. The irony, sometimes it hurts.

Julie