The Wall Street Journal editorial board weighs in, "Brendan Eich's case is another reason to rethink campaign disclosure laws" (via
Google):
The resignation under pressure late last week by Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for opposing gay marriage is a disturbing episode for corporate governance as well as for the traditional tolerance of other points of view in American life. Some of our liberal friends have been dismissing our warnings about the politics of personal vilification emerging on the left, but here is a case study.
Mr. Eich is a well known technologist who invented JavaScript and in 1998 helped to start Mozilla, which makes the popular Firefox Web browser. The 52-year-old became CEO two weeks ago, whereupon it emerged thanks to California's campaign-finance disclosure laws that he had donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8. That was the 2008 ballot initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Voters approved it but the judiciary struck it down.
Nothing we've read suggests that Mr. Eich has exhibited any personal bias in the workplace. And he affirmed that he would not change Mozilla's policy of providing the same health benefits to same-sex couples as married heterosexuals. He apologized to anyone who was hurt by his personal beliefs, but he declined to renounce them.
The Mozilla board denies that it pressured him to leave, but Mitchell Baker, executive chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation, said in a statement that "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard." Translation: If you work for Mozilla, Ms. Baker does not have your back.
Mr. Eich's views on marriage are no different than those held by President Obama as recently as 2012, or by Hillary Clinton until last year. The new political censors presumably gave those Democrats a pass because they assumed they were hiding their real convictions until it became politically advantageous to express them. But Mr. Eich is being drummed out of Silicon Valley for having the courage to stick to his.
Mr. Eich's treatment is another reason to rethink our views on campaign-finance disclosure laws. Years ago we supported reform that would deregulate campaign donation laws in return for immediate online disclosure.
But Justice Clarence Thomas made us think with his concurring opinion in 2010 in Citizens United that dissented on disclosure...
More.
Well, getting to the end of the editorial I'm reminded of James Taranto's piece on this from a couple of days ago, "
Justice Thomas Was Right: Citizens United and the defenestration of Brendan Eich."
Read the whole thing at the link. What struck me when I first read it was Taranto's long quotation from Thomas' concurring opinion, where he dissented from the majority (8-1) on campaign disclosures:
Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information [to attack Proposition 8 supporters] and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result. They cited these incidents in a complaint they filed after the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California's mandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: "Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter," or, "we have plans for you and your friends." Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the measure's supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Two religious organizations supporting Proposition 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopes containing a white powdery substance.
Those accounts are consistent with media reports describing Proposition 8-related retaliation. The director of the nonprofit California Musical Theater gave $1,000 to support the initiative; he was forced to resign after artists complained to his employer. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival was forced to resign after giving $1,500 because opponents threatened to boycott and picket the next festival. And a woman who had managed her popular, family-owned restaurant for 26 years was forced to resign after she gave $100, because "throngs of [angry] protesters" repeatedly arrived at the restaurant and "shout[ed] 'shame on you' at customers." The police even had to "arriv[e] in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob" at the restaurant. Some supporters of Proposition 8 engaged in similar tactics; one real estate businessman in San Diego who had donated to a group opposing Proposition 8 "received a letter from the Prop. 8 Executive Committee threatening to publish his company's name if he didn't also donate to the 'Yes on 8' campaign."
The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. Before the 2008 Presidential election, a "newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." Its leader, "who described his effort as 'going for the jugular,' " detailed the group's plan to send a "warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives."
These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici [friends of the court] present evidence of yet another reason to do so--the threat of retaliation from elected officials. As amici's submissions make clear, this threat extends far beyond a single ballot proposition in California. For example, a candidate challenging an incumbent state attorney general [in West Virginia] reported that some members of the State's business community feared donating to his campaign because they did not want to cross the incumbent; in his words, " 'I go to so many people and hear the same thing: "I sure hope you beat [the incumbent], but I can't afford to have my name on your records. He might come after me next." ' "
Here's
the decision.
I blogged all about this at the time. I had a couple of emails from people whose businesses were targeted simply because they supported the initiative. This is the kind of intimidation that was rife during Jim Crow, that if you got "uppity" your home would be burned down and you and your family would be lynched. When I raised these very facts to
Tara Dublin, particularly regarding
the leftist hate spewed at black people in Los Angeles, she blew her wig. Literally. She started spewing hatred and profanity and bragging about how she was going to block all the "homophobes." Regressive leftists are just not smart. They will bowl you over with emotion, however, the strongest of which is diabolical hatred.
