It’s not often that the Daily Horse prints a Public Relations “news” release verbatim, but this piece is just too precious. And, naturally, we had to give our responses. Here goes:
Sacramento – Acting on behalf of hundreds of supporters of Proposition 8 who have experienced various acts of harassment including death threats at the hands of opponents, the ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 committee today filed a challenge in US federal court to the constitutionality of California’s campaign finance laws that compel disclosure of personal information of Prop 8 donors.
Daily Horse Opinion: Various acts of harrassment including death threats. Gee, where have gay people heard those words before? Everywhere they go. For the past two hundred years.
“There has been a systematic attempt to intimidate, threaten and harass donors to the Proposition 8 campaign,” said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com. “This harassment is made possible because of California’s unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules as applied to ballot measure committees where even donors of as little as $100 must have their names, home addresses and employers listed on public documents. These disclosure rules violate the US constitution in numerous ways. We are standing up for our contributors to ensure that the harassment stops.”
Daily Horse Opinion: BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, I LOVE MY BLAHG.
The suit notes that groups such as Californians Against Hate (www.californiansagainsthate.com) exist for the primary purpose of identifying and taking action against supporters of Proposition 8. The suit cited numerous examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards suffered by supporters of Proposition 8, including:
“Burn in hell.”
Daily Horse Opinion: First of all, Mary, we don’t say lamo things like “Burn in hell.” We say: Listen you sticky bottomed crack whore, get your pansy-assed, lying, nasty, homophobic, bigoted hate-on outta my fucking face.
“Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”
Daily Horse Opinion: Listen, girl, the only way any of us would say you are lucky is if you started, how do you say it, playing for the other team. And, honey, we so don’t want ya. (Altogether now ::channeling Larry Craig on his way home from Minnesota:: I am not gay.)
“I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi’s [sic] in the newspaper….Don’t worry though, we have plans for you and your friends.”
Daily Horse Opinion: Uh, sorry, but we do know how to spell the “N” word? Bitch.
The lawsuit also detailed acts of vandalism, property destruction, distribution of harassing flyers, and threats to ruin businesses employing donors to the Prop 8 campaign.
Photo by Richard Lui The Desert Sun
Daily Horse Opinion: Oh for heaven’s sake! Some old gal with dirty tennis shoes, a big styrofoam cross, a visor, a neck scarf, a green canvass carpetbag and a string of pearls goes to a gay rally in Palm Springs and you whine because short stuff got accidently stepped on by the crowd and her cross fell apart? bbbwwwwaaahhhh. Check with us on your outfit next time, will ya?
“The United States Supreme Court has ruled that campaign disclosure laws can be invalidated if it subjects supporters to threats, harassment or reprisals from government, or private parties,” Prentice said. “That is exactly what has happened with supporters of Proposition 8.”
The suit alleges that California’s Political Reform Act is unconstitutional on numerous grounds:
The right of contributors to exercise their First Amendment rights free from threats, harassment and reprisals outweighs the state’s interest in compelled disclosure;
The Act’s requirements that committees report all contributors of $100 or more is unconstitutionally over broad in violation of the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
The Act’s requirement for ballot measure committees to file any reports after the election is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
The Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not contain a mechanism for purging all reports related to a ballot measure after the election has occurred.
Daily Horse Opinion: Back off Nutty.