Bloodthirsty Liberal

The Usual Suspects line up on opposite sides of free speech:

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court abruptly called a halt to encroachments on political speech in the name of campaign finance reform. It ruled that spending limits imposed on corporations and unions infringed on constitutional rights, ending decades of attempts to limit advertising on their behalf. It also overturned McCain-Feingold provisions barring some kinds of advertising in the weeks before an election.

…

The best campaign finance reform is still transparency. If burning a flag in the street is free speech, then so are political contributions, especially when made in the open. If the reformers in Congress want to clean up elections, then force immediate reporting on the Internet of all contributions to all presidential, Senate, and Congressional races, and full weekly financial reports on expenditures. That will do more than all of the speech-restricting, unconstitutional efforts made since Watergate, and make the entire system a lot more honest.

…

No great shock to see Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy on one side with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor on the other.

But Clarence Thomas dissented from one part of the ruling:

Proposition 8 amended California’s constitution to provide that “[o]nly
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recog­nized in California.” Any donor who gave more than $100 to any committee supporting or opposing Proposition 8 was required to disclose his full name, street address, occupation, employer’s name (or business name, if self-employed), and the total amount of his contributions.

Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this informa­tion and created Web sites with maps showing the loca­tions of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a after the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California’s mandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other sup­porter,” or, “we have plans for you and your friends.”

Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the meas­ure’s supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Two religious organizations supporting Proposi­tion 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopes containing a white powdery substance.

Those accounts are consistent with media reports de­scribing Proposition 8-related retaliation. The director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater gave $1,000 to support the initiative; he was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festi­val was forced to resign after giving $1,500 because oppo­nents threatened to boycott and picket the next festival. And a woman who had managed her popular, fam­ily-owned restaurant for 26 years was forced to resign after she gave $100, because “throngs of [angry] protest­ers” repeatedly arrived at the restaurant and “shout[ed] ‘shame on you’ at customers.”

The police even had to “arriv[e] in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob” at the restaurant. Some sup­porters of Proposition 8 engaged in similar tactics; one real estate businessman in San Diego who had donated to a group opposing Proposition 8 “received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company’s name if he didn’t also donate to the ‘Yes on 8’ campaign.”

He concludes:

The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. Before the 2008 Presidential election, a “newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” Its leader, “who described his effort as ‘going for the jugular,’” detailed the group’s plan to send a “warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be consider­ing giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.”

These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements.

First of all, can we now set aside the racist notion that Justice Thomas didn’t know how to write?

He’s put his finger on the problem. We should call for transparency in all political transactions, but what about the people—the Left, invariably—who take advantage of and abuse that transparency?

I know people who didn’t want to be seen (literally seen) working for Brown, and who wouldn’t give money because they didn’t want their names showing up on his donor list. And it wasn’t for fear of ostracism, I can assure you—these people are open with their friends about their beliefs. Maybe Scott Brown’s campaign didn’t bring out the street thugs on the Left (then again, maybe it did), but something, sometime, will.

How can you have a gentleman’s agreement to respect Free speech and privacy when some members of the other side are the furthest thing from gentlemen?