ProPublica Challenges U.S. Supreme Court Assertion

ProPublica decided to challenge a premise in the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion of the Citizens United case, which overturned limits on corporate election spending . Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "With the advent of the Internet, disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters."

ProPublica tested this assertion by looking at fundraisers held by 16 lawmakers at two Bruce Springsteen concerts last year. "While we found many records online, none of them clearly identified those who attended the fundraisers or how much money was raised. At best, we ended up with a handful of possible attendees. At worst, we were left with no clues at all," wrote Sebastian Jones of ProPublica.

For details, click here.

List of donors to Prop. 8 campaign released

The report revealed that donors to the campaign to support Proposition 8 included Jeff Kent, a retired second baseman for the L.A. Dodgers; the Knights of Columbus; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and others including a janitor, homemakers and priests.

Nearly 14,000 donors — including homemakers, priests and a former member of the Los Angeles Dodgers — poured millions of dollars into the last two weeks of the campaign to pass Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in California. According to a campaign finance report made public on Monday, in all, both sides spent more than $83 million.

The report came just days after supporters of the ballot measure lost a suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento that sought to prevent the names of donors from being revealed. The suit argued that past disclosures had led to donors’ receiving harassing e-mail, death threats and boycotts of businesses. The court said the release of the names was particularly important in such expensive campaigns.

Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind Proposition 8, said he had received no reports of harassment on Monday.

More here.

Donors of Prop. 8 campaign not exempt from campaign-finance disclosure

The sponsoring committee of Proposition 8, Protect Marriage, filed a suit arguing that disclosure of the names of those who donated at least $100 to the campaign has led to "consumer boycotts, picketing and even death threats." U.S. District Judge Morrison England denied the request and strongly supported "full and fair disclosure of everyone who's involved in these political campaigns."

Proposition 8 proponents' complaint that a California campaign-finance disclosure law has led to harassment of same-sex marriage opponents failed to sway a federal judge, who refused Thursday to throw out the law or shield 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.

A lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign said it would ask an appeals court to modify or overturn the law, which requires disclosure of all contributors of $100 or more.

More here.

Can You Remove Our Donor Records, Pretty Please?

Passing along from Justin McLachlan's blog:

The ballot measure committee Protectmarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage have asked a federal court to force California to remove campaign donor records from public view (expunge them completely, actually) and declare that the state's campaign disclosure law -- insomuch as it makes them file reports after the election is over and allows/requires those reports be publicly available after the election -- violates the First Amendment.

The groups said that "there is a reasonable probability that the Act's compelled disclosure requirements will result in threats, harassment, and reprisals, similar to those already suffered by supporters of Proposition 8."

So, if I get this, the folks who sponsored Prop 8 now want the fact that they supported it hidden? What chicanery! And think of the groups that could support all sorts of controversial and divisive legislation, if they know that after the fact they can turn to the courts for a bit of secrecy?

Former U.S. Rep. challenges reporters to follow the money

Having been the first member of Congress to spend more than $1 in a re-election campaign, Jolene Unsoeld told journalists at the Washington Coalition for Open Government breakfast that they can't expect to stop the flow of money. The challenge, is to uncover who is providing the money, which is often shrouded by front groups.

She was the first woman to climb the north face of the Grand Teton, but former U.S. Rep. Jolene Unsoeld feels that exposing big money in politics is an even grittier, more hazardous challenge.

Unsoeld, of Olympia, received the James Madison Award from the Washington Coalition for Open Government at a Friday breakfast in Seattle.

The award honored Unsoeld as a driving force behind the state Public Disclosure Act, and as compiler of a book ("Who Gave? Who Got? How much?" ) that put footprints on the large vested interests pulling the strings of state government.

More here.