Prop 8 Supporters Fight Back
Hey folks,
ProtectMarriage.com is fighting back. It's about time.
Acting on behalf of hundreds of supporters of Proposition 8 who have experienced various acts of harassment including death threats at the hands of opponents, the ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8 Committee Thursday, filed a challenge in US federal court to the constitutionality of California's campaign finance laws that compel disclosure of personal information of Prop 8 donors.
They released this following Press Release.
"There has been a systematic attempt to intimidate, threaten and harass donors to the Proposition 8 campaign," said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com. "This harassment is made possible because of California's unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules as applied to ballot measure committees where even donors of as little as $100 must have their names, home addresses and employers listed on public documents. These disclosure rules violate the US constitution in numerous ways. We are standing up for our contributors to ensure that the harassment stops."
The suit notes that groups such as Californians Against Hate (www.californiansagainsthate.com) exist for the primary purpose of identifying and taking action against supporters of Proposition 8. The suit cited numerous examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards suffered by supporters of Proposition 8, including:
"Burn in hell."
"Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."
"I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi's [sic] in the newspaper....Don't worry though, we have plans for you and your friends."
The lawsuit also detailed acts of vandalism, property destruction, distribution of harassing flyers, and threats to ruin businesses employing donors to the Prop 8 campaign.
"The United States Supreme Court has ruled that campaign disclosure laws can be invalidated if it subjects supporters to threats, harassment or reprisals from government, or private parties," Prentice said. "That is exactly what has happened with supporters of Proposition 8."
The suit alleges that California's Political Reform Act is unconstitutional on numerous grounds:
The right of contributors to exercise their First Amendment rights free from threats, harassment and reprisals outweighs the state's interest in compelled disclosure;
The Act's requirements that committees report all contributors of $100 or more is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
The Act's requirement for ballot measure committees to file any reports after the election is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
The Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not contain a mechanism for purging all reports related to a ballot measure after the election has occurred.
Now is it or is it not Constitutional? I'm not sure to tell you the truth. Should we know who Supports what? Should we have transparency in our electoral process? We have lists of Donors to Politicians. It is an attempt to provide fairness to all Candidates. But as we saw in this past election, and is pretty much standard, there are ways around that. Bundling, paying off people to donate to this or that one, ETC. So is there a point to listing those that support this or that ballot issue?
I would like to see this play out in court. Interesting concept. However, anyone who harasses anyone should meet the full extent of the law. I repeat, I would still like to see these Idiots harass, protest, and attempt to intimidate those that ACTUALLY Voted for Prop 8. But they are to cowardly to do that.
Good luck ProtectMarriage.com We are all watching to see the outcome.
Peter
Sources:
The ProtectMarriage.com - Yes On 8 Campaign
Hey folks,
ProtectMarriage.com is fighting back. It's about time.
Acting on behalf of hundreds of supporters of Proposition 8 who have experienced various acts of harassment including death threats at the hands of opponents, the ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8 Committee Thursday, filed a challenge in US federal court to the constitutionality of California's campaign finance laws that compel disclosure of personal information of Prop 8 donors.They released this following Press Release.
"There has been a systematic attempt to intimidate, threaten and harass donors to the Proposition 8 campaign," said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com. "This harassment is made possible because of California's unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules as applied to ballot measure committees where even donors of as little as $100 must have their names, home addresses and employers listed on public documents. These disclosure rules violate the US constitution in numerous ways. We are standing up for our contributors to ensure that the harassment stops."
The suit notes that groups such as Californians Against Hate (www.californiansagainsthate.com) exist for the primary purpose of identifying and taking action against supporters of Proposition 8. The suit cited numerous examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards suffered by supporters of Proposition 8, including:
"Burn in hell."
"Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."
"I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi's [sic] in the newspaper....Don't worry though, we have plans for you and your friends."
The lawsuit also detailed acts of vandalism, property destruction, distribution of harassing flyers, and threats to ruin businesses employing donors to the Prop 8 campaign.
"The United States Supreme Court has ruled that campaign disclosure laws can be invalidated if it subjects supporters to threats, harassment or reprisals from government, or private parties," Prentice said. "That is exactly what has happened with supporters of Proposition 8."
The suit alleges that California's Political Reform Act is unconstitutional on numerous grounds:
The right of contributors to exercise their First Amendment rights free from threats, harassment and reprisals outweighs the state's interest in compelled disclosure;
The Act's requirements that committees report all contributors of $100 or more is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
The Act's requirement for ballot measure committees to file any reports after the election is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
The Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not contain a mechanism for purging all reports related to a ballot measure after the election has occurred.
Now is it or is it not Constitutional? I'm not sure to tell you the truth. Should we know who Supports what? Should we have transparency in our electoral process? We have lists of Donors to Politicians. It is an attempt to provide fairness to all Candidates. But as we saw in this past election, and is pretty much standard, there are ways around that. Bundling, paying off people to donate to this or that one, ETC. So is there a point to listing those that support this or that ballot issue?
I would like to see this play out in court. Interesting concept. However, anyone who harasses anyone should meet the full extent of the law. I repeat, I would still like to see these Idiots harass, protest, and attempt to intimidate those that ACTUALLY Voted for Prop 8. But they are to cowardly to do that.
Good luck ProtectMarriage.com We are all watching to see the outcome.
Peter
Sources:
The ProtectMarriage.com - Yes On 8 Campaign
No comments:
Post a Comment