A judge just upheld a law that Proposition 8 contributors must have their names revealed.
Like my good friend Art Pedroza, in a post of his, I used to back reporting on campaign spending . I think that’s still the position of the Orange County Register, where I wrote editorials for 19 years. (I never have supported limits on campaign spending.)
But I’ve changed my mind recently and now support ending all limits on political speech of any kind, including reporting contributions.
The First Amendment protects all speech concerning elections. So there should be no limits, no reporting requirements, no spending limits on speech concerning elections of persons or ballot measures.
Good Republican reinvention.
The world is leaning towards openness while the Republicans are tunneling towards anonymity.
However the Yes on 8 people blew it big time in their argument to keep their data secret. As explained by the Sweet Melissa blog:
“Before the November election, one of the plaintiffs (ProtectMarriage.com) sent letters to some businesses that gave to the “No on 8” campaign threatening to publicize the names of those that did not give the same amount to “Yes on 8” side.
and The public disclosure law that plaintiffs now say is unconstitutional is the result of a ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly by California voters in 1974. So much for the “will of the people.” ”
The problem is contributors were ignorant to assume that their contributions were going to be secret. And people do have the right to boycott, heck the AFA does it to McDonalds and Pepsi Cola.
The problem is the Yes on 8 people complain that the GLBT equality campaigners are using Nazi tactics, but the AFA and TVC uses the same tactics as well.
This issue is severely polarizing, but maybe we should delay the reports an extra 2-3 months so tempers would cool down from both sides.
Free speech = Anonyms response, you got to love it.
I think that the judge made the correct ruling – no exceptions.
John S. – There are limits on speech. Full disclosure of campaign contributions is good for the election process.
@1, Anonyms.
You’re being ironic, right? You’re against anonymity for campaign contributions in favor of “openness,” yet your name is “Anonyms” and you won’t reveal your name here.
And I’m not a Republican unless Ron Paul runs again. I’m registered Libertarian.
“The First Amendment protects all speech concerning elections.”
No, it doesn’t.
The First Amendment says that the government can not restrict free speech. It doesn’t protect “all speech”, nor “all speech concerning elections.”
The government can not prohibit you from free speech in public, but on private property, there doesn’t exist any free speech. Private owners of blogs, for example, can delete anything they don’t like.
There is a big difference between LIMITING how much a person can give in support/opposition to a cause and requiring complete disclosure of contributor information.
#3, Gator:
As usual, you seem to have problems understanding the rules of this country.
Free speech can very well be anonymous. The City of LA tried once to prohibit anonymous leaflets. That was stuck down as unconstitutional.
Talley v. California, 1960: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talley_v._California
Thanks for showing your ignorance, again…
JS said: “The First Amendment protects all speech concerning elections.”
The First Amendment protects all speech, without a special provision for political speech.
Protected speech is subject to reasonable limitation – fire in a theater, slander, etc.
Political (election) speech would therefore be subject to reasonable limitation.
I do not agree with most campaign contribution limits. However, I do agree with full and speedy disclosure of campaign contributions as a reasonable limitation on political speech.
Amendment 1 – United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Joe said: “.. on private property, there doesn’t exist any free speech. Private owners of blogs, for example, can delete anything they don’t like.”
Agreed. However, blog owners can and should be held accountable to the public, their customers, for any unreasonable and unfair censorship.
#10:
Junior, I disagree strongly.
First, what is “unreasonable” or “unfair”? That’s in the eye of the beholder.
Second, why stop at blog owners? Is a “no shoes, no shirt, no service” sign in a shop censorship? A blog or any website is no different. If you don’t like the policies of the shop/blog/website/whatever, you have to option to not go there/don’t click on the link.
You guys just continually do not get it. It is just amazing,
First: Freedom of Speech pertains to the passage of laws restricting free speech. It does not apply to private actions. Can’t you guys just bother to READ?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Ok, is that clear enough? ” . . NO LAW . . . ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH . . .”
We will ignore the difference between time and place restrictions and content restrictions. We will also ignore the fact that donating money to support a cause is not really speech. The idea behind the first amendment is to promote the free expression of ideas. Let us instead focus rather upon the fact that the law in question does not stifle speech – it merely places a reporting requirement upon the amount of money that a person can donate to a political fund (here, the funding organization for no on prop 8) We are not even discussing the issue of limits upon what a person can donate to a political fund – just the fact that when you donate money, it has to be a matter of public record.
And, Seiler, you just want to ignore the supreme court and jurisprudence simply because you don’t like the impact in one case.
Nice. Libertarian or Anarchist?
#8 Joe, Take it easy Joe, you missed the point again, as always.
#13:
Is that all you can come up with? Geez, you are even more intellectually challenged than I thought possible.
You really need to start getting an education. Listening to hate talk radio doesn’t qualify.
#14
As always Joe.
Joe #11 – Of course what is unreasonable and unfair is in the eye of the beholder.
And that beholder has the right to withhold approval and any type of support, monetary or otherwise, based on their own personal perception. That is my point.
Joe #11 said: “Second, why stop at blog owners? Is a “no shoes, no shirt, no service” sign in a shop censorship?”
Well, yeah, it is a sort of censorship. So what? Perfectly legal. What is your beef?