Prop 8 Supporters (Not Gays) Are The True Victims Of Prop 8?
In a truly remarkable column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, right-wingers John Lott and Bradley Smith use the backlash against Prop 8 donors to suggest we put an end to campaign finance disclosure laws.
This could only be written in light of persistent winger media efforts to paint Yes on 8 donors as the victims of Prop 8. By erasing the true victims - 18,000-plus same sex families and innumerable others who wished to follow them to full civil equality - folks like Steve Lopez have constructed an upside-down universe where the far right can use their own wealthy, self-designated "victims" as a battering ram against campaign finance disclosure rules they've long opposed anyway, while ignoring the blood on their hands.
The argument is as pernicious as it is disingenuous.
It holds that mandatory campaign finance disclosure laws limit freedom of speech and of political action and that anonymous donations have traditionally protected groups, like the NAACP (they from government harassment, not from public accountability, which the columnists neatly ignore), and that public pressure to disclose donors who choose to not remain anonymous will accomplish what regulations already provide (yeah, right).
This is not just another wingnut attempt to protect wealthy corporate milch-cows. It's a full-tilt attempt to undermine California's campaign finance disclosure laws.
Conservatives apparently believe that the government should be able to eavesdrop on domestic electronic communications without probable cause, and to imprison any citizen indefinitely, without counsel or appeal, if a bureaucrat says that citizen might have talked to someone who might be a suspected terrorist. But hey, if you have nothing to hide, why should you care?
Simultaneously, conservatives apparently are able to believe that the public should not have the right to know whether a church they attend or business they patronize gave money to a political campaign acting contrary to their interests, (Homeland Security already knows that from wiretaps, but it's not telling the IRS) all because some people may have strong views about your strong views about them, and they think the laws should protect them from your criticism or your taking your business elsewhere, cutting into their profits derived from... you!
Gosh. It must be terribly confusing living in a world in which one has to believe so many completely contradictory and downright scary things simultaneously.