SCOTUS Rejects CA Dispute Over Disclosing Donors To Anti-Gay Marriage Initiatives

FILE - In this April 9, 2010 file photo, the Supreme Court is seen in Washington. The Supreme Court is debating whether young teenagers convicted of killing someone may be locked up for life with no chance of parole,... FILE - In this April 9, 2010 file photo, the Supreme Court is seen in Washington. The Supreme Court is debating whether young teenagers convicted of killing someone may be locked up for life with no chance of parole, the latest in a line of cases seeking a second chance for young people. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned away an appeal from same-sex marriage opponents in California who want to keep the identities of their campaign donors secret.

The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling against ProtectMarriage.com, the National Organization for Marriage and other supporters of a 2008 ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriages in California until the ban was overturned five years later.

The groups sought to conceal their past and future campaign finance records because they feared harassment of donors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them in part because the names have been publicly available for five years.

State law requires political committees to identify those who contribute more than $100 during or after a campaign, along with the donor’s address, occupation and employer.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Notable Replies

  1. If ever there was a tell, this is it.

    The message is, We know a whole bunch of litigious folks are about to go nuts over our ruling on treating same-sex marriages as having the same legal standing as opposite-gender marriages, and we want to provide some practical disincentives to discourage raising this again in the any court system over which we have jurisdiction.

  2. The thing is you can’t hide behind a bush, jump out and stab somebody in the back, and then go hide behind the bush waiting to do it again. By keeping their identity secret this is essentially what they want to do. Moreover, if they really stand behind their professed morals then they should have no problem disclosing who they give donations to. For instance, I have no problem with anyone knowing I’ve given to pro-marriage equality and pro-choice groups over the years. Indeed, I’m proud of it.

  3. So, where’s the list of names?

  4. Yes!! This is a strike for fairness and transparency in these political campaign funding issues. Thanks for a good Monday, SCOTUS!!

  5. Hopefully, the good state of California will be seeing to it that list will be produced pronto.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

7 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for george_c Avatar for foundryman Avatar for avattoir Avatar for ctvoter Avatar for sniffit Avatar for califdemdreamer Avatar for jaybeeraybee Avatar for beattycat Avatar for antisachetdethe

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: