Judge: Prop 8 Campaign Must Release Campaign Data

[Newsjock]

Source: KTVU

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge in San Francisco says the sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban must hand over some internal campaign records to lawyers seeking to overturn the voter-enacted initiative.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker denied a request Thursday by the Protect Marriage campaign to shield all e-mails, memos and reports dealing with its strategy, voter messages and rationale for preventing gay couples from marrying.

The group had argued that releasing the information violated the free speech rights of its supporters and potentially subjected them to harassment from gay marriage advocates.

But the judge dismissed those arguments, saying that the campaign had failed to show that providing the documents would inhibit the political activities of people who oppose same-sex marriage.

Read more: http://www.ktvu.com/news/21177826/detail.html

[MountainLaurel]

1. Woot! n/t

[Union Yes]

2. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! knr

:patriot:

[Gormy Cuss]

3. That's going to be some fine reading material, yessuh. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

4. should we expect an appeal ?

[ruggerson]

5. this bodes well for this case

[pleah]

6. K&R

[onehandle]

7. Excellent. More names for the list of people to be collected by the Obama administration.

When the time comes.

[defendandprotect]

8. Let's hope we finally get to see the money and power behind this hatred . . .!!!

[Starry Messenger]

9. Oh hell yeah.

This is huge.

[Cha]

10. Rec'd..good

shine some light on their ugliness.

[David Zephyr]

11. Bravo!

K&R.

[DeSwiss]

12. "O' Discriminator, Where Art Thou Sting?!? Come out of the dark....

...and into the light. Just follow the light."

- You'd think with this being a group of such "highly moral people" here, those who would use the power of government to impose their religion's laws onto others, would have little to fear and welcome the chance to be open and honest about it. And to take a public stand whenever, and wherever they vote to take away the civil rights of someone else.

Wouldn't you?



K&R

[neuvocat]

13. I thought along the same lines.

The Mormons openly campaigned for prop hate as a profession of their faith. Of course when retaliation starts, then suddenly you hear "THIS IS A PRIVATE MATTER AND I DESERVE PROTECTION FROM THESE BRUTES!!!"

Prop Hate-there's an interesting pun.

[DeSwiss]

17. These haters who now claim that their "free speech" rights....

...would be violated and that the disclosure of their names "might potentially" subject them to harassment from gay marriage advocates, are full of shit. They lose the right of anonymity when they become involved in public acts that are designed to shape and create the laws that apply to everyone. If one signs a petition to the government to set a referendum, your name becomes public record. If you spend money trying to influence the outcome of elections and referendums or the creation or negation of a public law, I'm sorry but your privacy does not extend out this far under our laws. If someone wants to buy influence through legally formed political organizations in our country, you can. We simply require that you let us know to whom, and how much.

Like all conservatives these cretins and knuckle-draggers are trying to have it both ways. They want the public laws that allows them to invade the privacy and lives of same-sex couples through elections and referendums to remain intact and sacrosanct. But the other end of that stick also requires that you come out of hiding when you do it. Particularly when you're imposing your will upon others.

- The least they owe the victims of their hatred, is to show them their faces. But they must be so ashamed, that they can't even do that.

[paulsby]

29. just for the record

not everybody who signs a petition for something to be put on the ballot necessarily agrees with the substance of the petition

i personally have signed petitions on occasion for policies i am AGAINST, but that i think should be brought to public vote.

in other words, signing a petition to get something on the ballot, does NOT mean you support the underlying cause, merely that you support having the cause go to general vote of populace.

i think that is a point that many miss

[DeSwiss]

30. Yes this is true.....

...however, once you sign that petition your name and the fact that you signed it, can't become a state secret. And that's what this issue and this judge's ruling is about -- the disclosure and openness of public information.

[paulsby]

31. i am agnostic on this issue

i don't know enough about this area of law to comment on it, from a legal standpoint.

i realize there is a difference between a VOTE (which is secret) and signing a petition.

i'll leave this one to the legal experts. it's just not an area i feel able to comment on (the legal side)

[DeSwiss]

32. Who you vote for....

...is and should always be a secret ballot. But a petition, once submitted to the proper authorities, become a public document once it is certified. Because how else can anyone ever know if those signatures are legitimate? How would it ever be known if the people signing the petition are eligible to do so? And unless the exposure of a public document raises questions of national security, then they are and must all open and available for perusal. That's why we call it a free society. The same thing applies to political organizations. Otherwise without disclosure how would we know whether or not these organizations aren't simply collecting money to bribe the politicians we elect? Therefore, full disclosure is required here as well.

I might add that signing a petition on an issue that one is against simply to place said question before the public, is not the way I'd approach the issue. But to each his own.

[Igel]

34. It's a democratic POV.

Note the small "d".

When I lived in states that had petitions for putting things on the ballot I simply verified that the petitions were valid and the gatherers had the proper permission and then told them to shut up--don't explain them to me, I could read them if I cared. Then I'd sign. Once I had the amusement of having two competing petition drives at essentially the same location--one to allow something and one to ban that same something--and so I signed one. Then I walked 15 feet right over to the second drive and signed the other. I wasn't the only person that did this, by the way (and both sets of signature collectors were mildly outraged).

And, yes, I also sign petitions for people to run for office, usually without much caring who they are. I'd rather have a politician I disapprove of win because a clear majority wants him/her to than have "my" candidate win because s/he was the only candidate on the ballot, and sometimes it's just hard for minor candidates without political machines behind them to muster a big enough organization to collect the signatures. (Just call me "pro-choice" on the matter.) I like the process, often a great deal more than the result.

I also had to collect signatures for student government stuff, and found it obnoxious.

[paulsby]

36. i am aware of that POV

i am saying i have not read enough of the case law and analysis to have an opinion myself - ON THE LAW.

as a policy issue, i think the preferable policy is for votes AND signing of petitions to be private , but if the law differs, then i bow to the law.

i have skimmed several arguments by legal scholars who come to the opposite pov that you do - ON THE LAW.

i don't make snap decisions on the law.

[EFerrari]

14. Does this guy look like he cares about civil liberties?

http://www.sfarchdiocese.org/about-us/archbishop/

[DeSwiss]

18. Well, actually.....

...yeah. Limiting them.

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/10/01/dominican-republic-constitution-bans-abortion-in-all-cases/">Dominican Republic: Constitution Bans Abortion in All Cases

[countmyvote4real]

15. Nice. I couldn't have said it better. n/t

[DeSwiss]

19. Thank you.

[Zhade]

16. Take that, you fucking bigots.

NT!

[Loudmxr]

20. They do have a good point about freedom to pursue political issues privately

had the conservative movement not insisted on looking under every bed, in every closet, and around every corner for every leftist or progressive for the past 100 or more years. Digging up information like that is traditional conservatism.

Gee, it seems they are afraid of being treated like they have been treating others. Its almost like white people being afraid of being treated badly by a growing majority of brown folks. Oh... that's right. That is a conservative cottage industry now isn't it? :smoke:

[JBear]

23. There may be some more to this than we think...

If these reports (and I expect them to be cleansed somewhat) show that there was an organized effort by a particular church to do this - in effect using tax free dollars to fund campaigns - they may be jeopardizing their tax free status. Loose lips do sink ships...

:bounce:

[Po_d Mainiac]

21. Watch Maine also.."Group under Microscope" link below

http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/6928746.html

[justiceischeap]

24. I love the irony of this quote

"The split 3-2 vote overruled the independent professional recommendation of the commission staff that an investigation was not warranted," he said. "Instead, a bare majority of commissioners agreed with a California-based hate group that exists for the sole purpose of harassing marriage supporters that they should examine whether NOM has raised funds designated for the Question 1 campaign without disclosing the source of the funds."
Marc Mutty of Stand for Marriage Maine (emphasis mine)

[Joanne98]

22. WOW They're in trouble now! LOL

[myrna minx]

25. K&R n/t

[xchrom]

26. THIS is gonna be good!

:rofl:

[downeyr]

27. Fuck Yes!! One Win For The Good Guys!!

Please let this show a shit-ton of shady campaign practices! The only political activities that would be inhibited here would be those of religious organizations that shouldn't be involved in politics anyway!

[hunter]

28. We must not allow our laws to be written by cockroaches scurrying around under cover of darkness.

Let's turn on the lights and seal up the cracks they crawled out of.

[robo50]

35. Excellent point! n/t

[Brother Buzz]

33. Spread a little sunshine