Gay marriage foes sue to keep donor names secret

I say we make breaking election laws a federal felony that comes with jail time... that might clean up the election process a little bit, and brian brown would love to be able to be anally penetrated without losing face to his biggotted friends and fellow goat-rapists.

 

How the hell is revealing the names of contributors a violation of free speech? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course, stopping corporations being able to donate as much as they want to a politician was declared a violation of free speech and that made about as much sense as this does.

No one in government seems to have any sense these days. It seems like they are so caught up in their own games that they completely lose sight of reality and of what's really important.

 

if there speech is so important to them, why are they hiding it?

It is like all those racist KKK members... if your so proud of your whiteness, and who you are, why are you hiding it with sheets and hoods?

and on the left side of the spectrum, what about the left wing protesters who like to protest enviormental and g20 causes? why are you hiding your face behind a bandana? if you want to stand up for a cause, dont hide who you are!

 

Hm....why does Prop 8 seem to ring a bell right now in my head? Hmmm...

 

because the prop 8 supporters demanded the no on 8 no h8 campaigns to release their donor list, which they did, and the prop 8 supporters started to send threatening blackmail letters to big donors demanding that a equal or greater ammount be given to yes on 8... then yes on 8 refused to release their donor lists.

 

I want to start by making it clear this is not my view and I fully believe that political contributions should be completely open for public viewing. I believe the argument on the other side of the issue is that free speech must allow for anonymity in order for the speaker to feel free enough to speak in the first place. That a minority opinion can be suppressed through fear tactics thus requiring anonymity.

Think of it in terms of being gay in high school. Though thankfully this is becoming a dated example, speaking up and saying you're gay in high school can be dangerous or at the very least too scary to actually do for fear of verbal and even physical attacks. Clearly you have every right to say that you're gay, but the fear of other's opinions and judgments may stop you from doing that or even doing anything that may place the label on you. But with anonymous school surveys or say student council elections you can still vote or voice support for gay issues without your name being attached. While obviously not a perfect example, hopefully that gets the idea across well enough.

Now remember, even though NOM and likeminded organizations are using this tactic to shield people from being smeared with labels of bigotry, it can very easily be used by legitimate minority opinion groups. While I understand their stance, personally, I think the money makes a difference. The effects and accessibility granted by free speech should be equally free for all, not based on how much money you have and thereby shouldn't allow you the cover of anonymity in this case (again my personal view).

 

Fair enough. The fact is though, that these people should have known when donating that their names were unlikely to be kept secret. That implies consent to have your name known.

You could also argue that it's a violation of free speech to keep those names anonymous because it discourages free and open debate with the opponents to your views. It can be argued either way.

There have to be checks and balances on these things. It may not be entirely fair to endangered minorities who may have to put themselves at risk, but no accountability in these matters opens up far worse prospects. Besides, there are other options to protect yourself other than anonymity.

 

Yep, that's essentially exactly my position on the issue and couldn't agree more.