Ok... these bastards need to go down, Big.

[pecunium]

Yes on 8 Supporters Admit to Blackmailing People


The letter from Yes on 8 came by certified mail, demanding at least $10,000. Jim Abbot knows exactly why he's being targeted - his business gave $10,000 to a group called Equality California, which supports No on Prop 8....

The letter says if Jim doesn't give an equal donation to Yes on 8, the name of his company will be published. It reads in part, "It is only fair for Proposition 8 supporters to know which companies and organizations oppose traditional marriage....

Yes on 8 confirms they sent around 30 companies the letter.

It's probably not illegal, but I want to find out every single business owner which supported it, publish their companies' names and start a boycott.

With a statement that their support for 8 is the reason why.

Comments

[urox.livejournal.com]

"an anti-Proposition 8 group called Californians Against Hate has posted lists of gay marriage ban donors on the Internet and even launched boycotts of selected businesses..."

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_10797458

http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/

[summers-place.livejournal.com]

Indeed you should. And what a crock - supporting same-sex marriage in no way implies opposition to heterosexual marriage.

*fume*

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

*hopes the business owners are channeling the Duke of Wellington*

[tlatoani.livejournal.com]

No expert on CA law, but that sounds like it might legally be extortion in at least some jurisdictions. He ought to press charges and see what happens.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

There's a good way to oppose this kind of blackmail: I asked to be part of the list.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

I don't suppose it's technically illegal, but it seems to me that -"give us money or we'll..."- cuts very close to extortion; it's not at all the same thing as asking for a donation.

I'm glad that we now have laws making the names of substantial donors to all such political campaigns a matter of public record. (I also find it ... interesting that there's a remarkably long list of $25,000.00 donors to the Yes On 8 campaign, and that so many of them appear to be identifiably connected with the LDS Church. *sigh*

[jaebi-lit.livejournal.com]

The list of organizations fundraising for and against Prop. 8 is available at the CA Secretary of State's Campaign Finance site (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/Detail.aspx?id=1302602&session=2007).

Click on any name and it'll take you to various options for looking at donor data and downloading spreadsheets, which are easier to sort through. E.g. Looking at ProtectMarriage.com's late contributions and contributions over $5,000 (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&session=2007&view=late1), you can see that the owner of Los Alamitos Race Course donated $25k to Yes on 8. You can sort by zip code, city, employer and donation amount to figure out what businesses are in your area.

ProtectMarriage.com also has a list of individuals and businesses endorsing it here (http://protectmarriage.com/endorsements/a-k) and here (http://protectmarriage.com/endorsements/l-z).

[sharon-masters.livejournal.com]

Whatever it takes.
And once we kill Prop 8- they WILL be back you know- we need to quit dicking around and only getting our shit together once we are attacked this deeply.
We need to STAY together, create our OWN coaltion, and stop acting like we can all go our separate ways and not focus our efforts the same way that the bigots do.
Only WE don't have the fearmongers pushing us, taunting us, and telling us that God will kill us and our kids if we don't stop the heathens...

which is probably why we get so fucking complacent.
Let's try to stop that hu?

[tlatoani.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure whether it would actually be extortion under California law. Here's the statute; readers can judge for themselves:

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 518-527


518. Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his
consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer,
induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of
official right.

519. Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a
threat, either:
1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the
individual threatened or of a third person; or,
2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or
member of his family, of any crime; or,
3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace
or crime; or,
4. To expose any secret affecting him or them.

520. Every person who extorts any money or other property from
another, under circumstances not amounting to robbery or carjacking,
by means of force, or any threat, such as is mentioned in Section
519, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two,
three or four years.

521. [removed; irrelevant]

522. [removed; irrelevant]

523. Every person who, with intent to extort any money or other
property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or
other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or
adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section 519, is
punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were
actually obtained by means of such threat.

524. Every person who attempts, by means of any threat, such as is
specified in Section 519 of this code, to extort money or other
property from another is punishable by imprisonment in the county
jail not longer than one year or in the state prison or by fine not
exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both such fine and
imprisonment.

The key provisions are the bolded ones in 519. Since political contributions are technically not secret, it might be hard to meet the test in 4. 3 is kind of a catch-all, however, and that's where we'd need to see the case law to decide whether it would fit.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

As a hetrosexual married woman, I am actually INSULTED by the implication that somehow, a same sex marriage weakens mine. Of all the things that ever caused problems in my relationship, the relationships of others had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[whumpdotcom.livejournal.com]

And two wrongs make a right? Or do people trying to eliminate the rights of others get a pass?

ETA: as pointed out, contributions above a certain size are public record.

[urox.livejournal.com]

I'm unclear as to what point you are trying to make. pecunium mentioned wanting to start a list of places to boycott for supporting prop 8. I provided a starting source of information.

Neither boycotts nor publishing public record is wrong. Attempting to extort money (even if it doesn't qualify as such due to public record) seems desperate.

[urox.livejournal.com]

As a heterosexual married woman, I'm angry that they want to take away MY RIGHT and my spouse's right to marry someone of the same sex should either of us survive the other. I may not ever make use of the right (just like I don't currently make use of my right to keep and bear arms), but damn it, it is still currently MY right as well.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Because supporting the current state Supreme Court's interpretation can hardly be criminal, or (at least in this instance, with almost half the voters doing it) disgraceful, I don't think it would be a good case.

All the same, that "give us money or..." threat seems to me to be disgraceful, reprehensible, and either immoral or unethical. I have no objection, in principle, to promoting a boycott against a business on the basis of its political donations (though I'd be more likely to support one against a business that donated to the Yes on 8 campaign), but announcing that you can be bought off for a sum of money strikes me as being sleazy and just plain Wrong.

[ammitbeast.livejournal.com]

That's just vile. But no more than I expected from the people behind prop 8.

[aerowolf.livejournal.com]

Also, the statement that they will publish the name as being "against families" is false. This means that they are demanding money or they will commit libel. In Wisconsin, that would qualify as "intimidation", which is a felony.

Unfortunately, California doesn't have a felony of intimidation.

[tlatoani.livejournal.com]

Because supporting the current state Supreme Court's interpretation can hardly be criminal, or (at least in this instance, with almost half the voters doing it) disgraceful, I don't think it would be a good case.

That's 519.3, and given how this is being handled it's pretty clear that the people sending the letters regard it as "disgraceful," so I wouldn't completely write it off. 519.4 could also work, if the courts were willing to view the connection between the donation and the business as a "secret," even though the donations themselves are a matter of public record.

Remember, this is criminal law, not civil. Filing charges is free, if you can get the police to take the report. Just the threat of criminal prosecution might shut this down -- and I think it's ambiguous enough to get it into court.

[serge-lj.livejournal.com]

So, if you are against Prop 8, you're opposed to Traditional Marriage? Interesting interpretation.

I hope Abbot told them to go bleep themselves.

[mzcalypso.livejournal.com]

What's particularly and almost endearingly stupid about this extortion attempt is that THE NAMES AND LOGOS OF DONORS ARE ON EQUALITY CALIFORNIA'S WEBSITE!

It makes me think of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the sherrif takes himself hostage.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I had a friend who told me once, "Don't do anything I wouldn't do." Then she said that might be more liberty than I wanted.

I said, "No, it's more than I am likely to use, but I want all the liberties I can get."

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

What's the second wrong? How is it it a problem (morally) for me to refuse to patronise the businesses of people who are actively trying to do evil things?

I don't give a damn how someone votes. Not my business (see my posts about voter supression for some idea of my views on that question). I'm not even advocating boycotts of businesses which support Prop. 8.

I am saying that people who support this sort of extortive behavior are vile, and need to be punished for it. If you thinkt that's wrong, well I don't know what to say.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

A good point! (Never thought of life without him, and after this comment I'll go back to willfully ignoring the thought again.)