One good thing about today: Mormons goin down. Mormons failing. Mormons pwnd.
Prop. 8 campaign can't hide donors' names
"If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it's a ballot measure," U.S. District Judge Morrison England said after a one-hour hearing in his Sacramento courtroom.
What I relish is that Protect Marriage themselves filed the lawsuit (to strike down the $100 disclosure regulations, modify to raise $limit, or "at least not applied to Prop. 8's contributors"). Hahahah! An important political point scored in a state that would as soon sneeze as put a friggin ballot measure up. (And sneezing on purpose is harder.)
By requiring disclosure, "the government is getting in the middle (of the issue) and saying, 'Here are the people to go after,' " Richard Coleson, a lawyer for the committee, told England.
Yes, I'm coming for you with my trusty separation of church and state: prepare to die a horrific, meaningless death in the court of public opinion. What's even richer is the logic of the suit: oh no, it's intimidation not persuasion! Just really rich. Let's talk to some of my friends who underwent years of intimidation and, why not say it, torture (aversion therapy anyone?) growing up gay in the Mormon Church. The donkey is talking about ears.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld campaign disclosure laws in 1976 but ruled in 1982 that the Socialist Workers Party in Ohio could shield its donors' names because of a history of attacks and reprisals.
Protect Marriage argued that it was entitled to the same exemption because of retaliation against some of its contributors, but lawyers for the state said the two cases weren't comparable. They noted that the Prop. 8 campaign raised nearly $30 million from 36,000 donors.
If the Prop. 8 campaign was exempted from disclosure because of reports of harassments of individual donors, said Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, the same case could be made for any controversial initiative. Courts would have to "keep the entire California electorate in the dark as to who was funding these ballot measures," he said.
Again, yay \o/ and hahaha Socialists can has and you can't.
"If there ever needs to be sunshine on a particular issue, it's a ballot measure," U.S. District Judge Morrison England said after a one-hour hearing in his Sacramento courtroom.
What I relish is that Protect Marriage themselves filed the lawsuit (to strike down the $100 disclosure regulations, modify to raise $limit, or "at least not applied to Prop. 8's contributors"). Hahahah! An important political point scored in a state that would as soon sneeze as put a friggin ballot measure up. (And sneezing on purpose is harder.)
By requiring disclosure, "the government is getting in the middle (of the issue) and saying, 'Here are the people to go after,' " Richard Coleson, a lawyer for the committee, told England.
Yes, I'm coming for you with my trusty separation of church and state: prepare to die a horrific, meaningless death in the court of public opinion. What's even richer is the logic of the suit: oh no, it's intimidation not persuasion! Just really rich. Let's talk to some of my friends who underwent years of intimidation and, why not say it, torture (aversion therapy anyone?) growing up gay in the Mormon Church. The donkey is talking about ears.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld campaign disclosure laws in 1976 but ruled in 1982 that the Socialist Workers Party in Ohio could shield its donors' names because of a history of attacks and reprisals.
Protect Marriage argued that it was entitled to the same exemption because of retaliation against some of its contributors, but lawyers for the state said the two cases weren't comparable. They noted that the Prop. 8 campaign raised nearly $30 million from 36,000 donors.
If the Prop. 8 campaign was exempted from disclosure because of reports of harassments of individual donors, said Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, the same case could be made for any controversial initiative. Courts would have to "keep the entire California electorate in the dark as to who was funding these ballot measures," he said.
Again, yay \o/ and hahaha Socialists can has and you can't.