They’ve received threatening letters. They’ve been told that their names would be published so that people would know that they had donated money in connection to Proposition 8. They were warned that their donations went against the beliefs of others.

No, these are not the folks who donated money in favor of Proposition 8, some of whom have faced professional backlashes. These are businesses who donated money against it, and these letters were sent to them in October, prior to the election, in an effort to intimidate them into also giving money to ProtectMarriage.com.

This strategy was reported in the San Jose Mercury News, but obviously didn’t get a whole lot of media attention or else more people would be raising eyebrows at these very same people now suing to keep their own donor lists private.

They failed, and with good reason: Financial donations to political causes are public for the exact purpose of holding accountable those who attempt to influence governance with money.

Unfortunately, public information gets abused. There are a lot of jerks out there, gay, straight, Mormon, and atheist alike. When people use public information to engage in illegal behavior, they should be punished. But to respond with such abuses by saying the information should no longer be public — that’s not much different from attempting to ban guns entirely because they’re being used by criminals. It is an overly broad gesture that will not make us safer; in fact, it would likely result in even more dangerous abuses.

Consider how many ballot initiatives in California are put together by private interests who will benefit financially from their passage. You don’t have to go far: Proposition 10, the brainchild of Texas tycoon T. Boone Pickens, failed in November. He spent millions supporting an energy proposition in which he stood to financially gain. The availability of information showing Pickens’ role in this proposition no doubt played a role in its defeat.

Rendering donors’ information private would undoubtedly enhance the abilities of rich private interests to attempt to game California’s initiative system without the voters’ awareness of what is happening.

The spin suddenly appearing attempting to treat campaign donations as protected private speech is remarkably wrong-headed and would not be happening had Proposition 8 failed and, for example, the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints subsequently excommunicated any Mormon who donated against its passage.

Sending letters to those who donated money to defeat Proposition 8 and demanding an equal donation from them is legal, but sleazy. Demanding a theater fire an employee who donated money to pass Proposition 8 is also legal, but sleazy. Both organizations are free to ignore the demands. Freedom of speech protects from government censure. It does not protect against ill will from others in the private realm for public stands, even if the behavior is sleazy.

These are campaigns that affect the lives of millions. Nobody has the right to use their money to influence the outcome of these elections and remain private. These are not private acts. They irony here of those accusing gays of trying to invent rights for themselves now trying to invent rights for themselves does not escape me.

~

Scott Shackford is the Editor in Chief of the Desert Dispatch. He contributed $100 to the campaign to defeat Proposition 8.