Leave a Comment Sagesse
Prop 8 campaign could face almost $50,000 in fines
August 7, 2012
By Jacob Combs
The Los Angeles Times reports that the campaign to pass California’s Proposition 8 in 2008 could face $49,000 in fines for improperly processing and reporting the contributions it received in the lead-up to the 2008 election:
The fines are proposed by the enforcement staff of the state Fair Political Practices Commission against the campaign committee ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8. The staff found that the group had failed to properly file public reports disclosing late contributions and contributions of more than $5,000, as well as for not properly disclosing an anonymous $10,000 contribution.
In all, the campaign committee faces 18 counts of violating state political laws. The group has agreed to the violations and the fines, but the commission will still consider its staff’s recommendation at an Aug. 16 meeting.
Proposition 8 has been struck down twice by the federal courts: once in 2010 by a district court in California and a second time in 2012 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Prop 8′s supporters have petitioned the Supreme Court for an appeal of the lower courts’ rulings, which the high court will decide to take up or reject this fall.
Throughout the Proposition 8 campaign, opponents of marriage equality used divisive tactics that bended or distorted the facts and used scare tactics to dissuade Californians from upholding their fellow citizens’ access to equal rights. They pushed the district court to keep from having to testify in public, and petitioned the Supreme Court to stop a pilot program that would have televised the Prop 8 trial for the public. These latest fines are just one more indication that the campaign they ran, and continue to run, against equality is not, and never has been, a clean one.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
18 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | August 7, 2012 at 8:19 am
@
2.
davep | August 7, 2012 at 9:05 am
Eighteen violations! Wow, I hope the election officials in the states of Washington, Maine etc. are seeing this and monitoring these shenanigans between now and November.
3.
AnonyGrl | August 7, 2012 at 9:29 am
We are winning. On every level, in every court. Love is triumphing over hate.
4.
Kathleen | August 7, 2012 at 9:53 am
I wish I could sue them for the pain and suffering caused by the homophobic friends and family of my wife upon her death by casting doubt on the validity of our marriage the summer before the passing of prop 8. Plus I feared suing the hospital for a grave error, because the lawyer I consulted wasn’t sure our marriage was valid. It was. Hit them where it hurts.
5.
Jim | August 7, 2012 at 10:25 am
Sadly, $50,000 is a drop in the bucket for them, and I suspect they will just consider the price of doing business they way the want to.
6.
Glen | August 7, 2012 at 10:34 am
Typical. These people have no true respect for the law. They have now and will always place their religious commands above the law, even if they have to lie, cheat, and steal to do it.
7.
AnonyGrl | August 7, 2012 at 10:38 am
But we can publicize it. And let their donors know how they are wasting the money given to them.
8.
James Sweet | August 7, 2012 at 11:35 am
I had a similar thought, but it's still a significant victory. $50k may be peanuts, but these are some awesome peanuts. The symbolic importance shouldn't be underestimated. And while this is a trivial amount in terms of the Bad Guys' budget, it's a relatively hefty fee for this type of violation, so that sends a message too.
9.
davep | August 7, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Indeed. Never mind the $50.000 figure. Keep spreading that other figure – EIGHTEEN VIOLATIONS OF STATE ELECTION LAWS during the Prop 8 campaign, and point out that they are engaging in similar campaigns in four other states right now….
10.
Scott Wooledge | August 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Granted.
But the public shaming of them getting spanked is worth celebrating.
They'll doubtlessly spin it as "the Godless, liberal California government persecuting good Christians!"
But Americans are authoritarians far more often than not, so the election board coming down on them will look pretty bad to most people, however they try to spin it.
11.
Nickey J | August 7, 2012 at 2:36 pm
<img src="http://www.goldstoressite.com/shop/listz/ud.jpg">Ridiculous, how could we fight back now? <img src="http://www.goldstoressite.com/shop/listz/ho.jpg">
12.
TomTallis | August 7, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Too little and four years late. They should be made to disgorge every last dime of their unreported donations. They deliberately tried to hide the donations to "protect" the donors and they shouldn't be allowed to profit from their dishonesty in any way, shape, or form.
13.
Richard | August 7, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Has anyone tried to post this on the NOM site? I can't get posted.
14.
MightyAcorn | August 7, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Does ProtectMarriage CA still exist? Aren't campaign groups kind of like movie production companies, they try to dissolve as soon as possible after an election so they can't be tapped for future liability? I'm sure they'll try to find some other way to squirm out of responsibility for these fines if they are still incorporated….
15.
Leo | August 7, 2012 at 9:56 pm
No idea about common practice, but it most definitely exists: that's the organization defending the Prop 8 lawsuit (along with the individual sponsors).
16.
MightyAcorn | August 8, 2012 at 8:22 am
I thought I remember seeing them named in the lawsuits, so I hope they get socked good. The further problem will be collecting the fine–I'm betting the Fair Political Practices Commission has no enforcement powers, and as we've seen with other rulings against NOM and their affiliate groups, ProtectMarriage can probably get away with just ignoring the ruling.
17.
Ray in Sacramento | August 8, 2012 at 2:42 pm
I wonder if they could go after Andy Pugno and others who were connected with ProtectMarriage CA. He's is raising money to run in Assembly District 6. He lost in our assembly district in 2010 and I hope it happens again.
18.
Mike in Baltimore | August 8, 2012 at 7:30 pm
By trying to make it very clear that they broke the law 18 times.
And if there is blowback, it shows that they retain an attitude of the ends justify the means, which allows anyone and everyone to break the law if and when they feel it is OK to break the law.
A very effective argument in California might be that if a person feels they are poor, or will be poor in retirement, then it's OK to steal the taxpayer's money when working for the city or state, as that means the person doing the stealing (if not caught) doesn't have a (monetarily) deprived retirement.
I'm sure equivalent arguments can be thought up in other states.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.