Names of Prop. 8 donors shouldn’t be public record if it compromises their safety

Nearly three months after the election, supporters of Proposition 8 are battling in federal court, trying to overturn a state law requiring the public disclosure of personal information of campaign contributors. Proponents of the measure say their personal safety has been at risk ever since their private information was made public. But Attorney General Jerry Brown and state ethics agencies challenged these attempts to change campaign finance disclosure laws, arguing the necessity of these requirements. In light of what has happened since the election, a rethinking of this decades-old law is necessary to protect the personal safety of proposition supporters.

After the passage of this highly controversial proposition ““ which amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman ““ those in opposition took to the streets. Protests erupted in California’s large cities as Prop. 8 opponents fought for what they consider “civil rights.” These demonstrations quickly intensified, evolving from zealous marches to boycotts to vandalism. This surge of animosity continually frightens proposition supporters, especially when their personal information is out in the open.

Current state law requires that the name and personal information of all campaign contributors be made public. Gay rights activists used this free information to create an interactive online map showing the residences of Prop. 8 contributors, resulting in reports of harassment, vandalism and death threats.

Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Prop. 8, said they should change the state law due to privacy concerns.

“We have nothing to hide here,” he said. “We are really trying to protect the privacy of people.”

The week after Nov. 4, angry protesters surrounded the nearby Mormon temple. Publicized campaign contributions led opponents to focus on those who helped pass this law, and Mormons became an easy target.

A student wrote to the Daily Bruin to argue that their coverage of the protest encouraged the vilifying of the Mormon sect. Indeed, in an effort to exert the most influence, protesters chose to personally attack the easily targeted church instead of the 6.8 million Californians who voted for the measure. A boycott on all Utah businesses was even proposed. While it is fine to disagree with someone’s opinion on such a controversial issue, revealing the identities (and home addresses) of those with opposing viewpoints is a poor decision.

But Brown disagreed. Brown told the Los Angeles Times that “political democracy demands open debate, including prompt disclosure of the identities of campaign donors.”

I am not against open debate. But it seems that civil discussion has been traded for threats and intimidation. And with a subject such as same-sex marriage, if anything has been proven so far, it’s that the haughtiness and stubbornness of both sides will prevent any compromise in the near future. Unless the disclosure of campaign donors will somehow result in a public discussion of this issue, I don’t see how revealing private information contributes to “open debate.”

Ethics commissions officials argue that the publication of campaign donors is necessary to prevent money laundering and other illegal activity.

Instead, I suggest an existing government agency ““ possibly the California Fair Political Practices Commission ““ scrutinize all campaign donations and investigate any shady possibilities. This would be far more efficient and effective at picking up on potentially illegal behavior. And if the assurance of lawful behavior is the chief aim of public disclosure, this information has been abused from Day 1.

Publicly disclosing all financial contributors is necessary and helpful in many cases. During her secretary of state hearing, Hillary Clinton was required to reveal her donor list to explore potential conflicts of interest. The remarkable donations from Middle East leaders to her husband’s charitable foundation hinted at potential problems, but were ultimately deemed irrelevant to her new position. None of Clinton’s contributors were in any real danger by appearing on that list, as the public usually approves of extraordinary philanthropy. But if the personal safety of these donors was jeopardized, I would argue for this law to be re-evaluated.

Because of safety concerns, the state law that requires the release of personal information for all campaign contributors should be overturned. Given recent events, the fight over Prop. 8 is clearly far from over. Opponents are free to pursue appropriate legal methods and fight against the measure. But when voters are intimidated and threatened for exercising their democratic rights, we must reconsider whether revealing private information is still appropriate. After all, the safety of the individual is always the government’s primary concern.

If you have felt intimidated for supporting Prop. 8, e-mail Pearring at spearing@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *