Last week a federal judge ruled in support ofCalifornia campaign finance disclosure laws that requires making publicthe names of political donors contributing more than $100 to a campaignor candidate.
U.S.District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. ruled against the Yes on8/ProtectMarriage.com lawsuit which sought to have the names of donorsto the winning Nov. 4 ballot proposition which banned gay marriage inCalifornia kept secret.
England's ruling on Thursday was the right call on a number of levels.
Firstand foremost, the ruling preserved a three-decade-plus legal traditionin California that requires the names of political contributors be madepublic. England no doubt reasoned that keeping such records in thesunshine of unfettered public review trumps donor privacy interests.
Moreover,the attempt by the Yes on 8 people to make secret the names of theirsupporters flies against the very structure of our democratic (note thesmall 'd') state government. The public must have the ability to learnthe identities of the 'influencers' of elections -- pro and con --especially in a state that has become so dependent on the ballotinitiative process.
Atthe core of the Yes on 8 argument was that by having the Secretary ofState's office post the names of the contributors (in this case thenames of those who wrote checks in the reporting period following theNov. 4 balloting), they would be subject to threats of violence,vandalism, scorn and ridicule by the marriage equalitycommunities. Lawsuit proponents argued (but apparently never actuallypresented any hard evidence) that the release of contributor nameswould stimulate death threats against the donors.
Tobe sure, threats of physical harm cannot be tolerated in our electoralprocess. Such actions can go far beyond mere intimidation. Such actionserode and deteriorate the very nature of our of freedoms and ourdemocracy.
But make no mistake, Judge England was spot-on in his decision and how he weighed the competing factors present.
We cannot go back to the days when political contributors (especiallythe big fish) are allowed to swim in the inviting warm waters ofanonymity. We've come too far to embrace the "bad old good days" ofsmoke-filled back rooms again.
Afterall, if you think state and federal politics and government are murkynow, just imagine trying to make sense of it without the presence ofcampaign finance disclosure laws, the California Public Records Act,the Brown Act and, of course, the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Late word is that the Yes on 8/ProtectMarriage.com folks are likely to appeal the case. No real surprise there.
Nodoubt, the issue of gay marriage in our state remains a highly personaland controversial issue for many Californians. But as that battle goeson, a second front by the Yes on 8 lawsuit has unfortunately beenripped open. This new battle focuses on whether or not we can keep ourpolitical campaigns clean, open and our voters informed. It's one thatwe cannot afford to lose.
