ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

Dark money refers to funds contributed to political, independent expenditure organizations that do not reveal their donors. This amendment to the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Constitution would require independent expenditure organizations that spend more than $10,000 over two years to identify the sources of their money.

Interestingly, the Save Our Schools ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ organization is throwing in with Goddard. Save Our Schools ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ recently gathered enough signatures to hockey-check some recent education legislation off the books and on to a ballot prop, asking voters to say yay or nay to a large expansion of school vouchers. It hopes to repeat this signature gathering effort on behalf of Outlaw Dirty Money.

Another former ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ attorney general, Tom Horne, publicly supports Goddard’s effort to expose donors. Horne, a Republican, provided the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Capitol Times with a statement that appeals to the naive: “It’s very important for the voters of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, that when they get a message they see or hear, they know where it’s coming from. It tells you something about the credibility, it tells you something about the motivation. And people who have a political message should have the courage of being open about it and not hiding.â€�

This is all well and good in heaven, but we live on planet earth, where people are less genteel than the angels.

Money spent on political communication is a form of speech (see Buckley v. Valeo). Our country was inspired by, and founded upon, anonymously published documents. “Common Sense,� the famous pamphlet written by Thomas Paine, was published anonymously presumably because Paine wanted to write more than one issue. Paine’s publisher, Benjamin Rush, also chose to remain anonymous.

The Federalist Papers, a collection of essays involving political philosophy that helped shape our government, were all attributed to the name “Publius.�

Some might argue that the revolution is over and we no longer need to live in fear of reprisals. Perhaps, but we are still the same species and passions still run high. In fact, we need look no further than California for reasons to be concerned.

Recall the controversial California proposition that defined marriage as one man, one woman, Prop. 108. It narrowly passed 52 percent to 48 percent.

California has a law that requires the reporting of donor information, including name, occupation and employer, to the state. California then publishes that information on its website.

Activists used this information to harass Prop. 108 supporters at their places of employment either in person or via the telephone.

Marjorie Christoffersen’s $100 donation led to unrelenting protests outside the restaurant where she worked. She ended up taking a leave of absence for the sake of the restaurant, which was owned by her mother.

A high-profile example was the case of Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, the developers of the Firefox web browser. It was discovered from these published records that he donated to a pro-Prop. 108 organization. The outrage was so intense that he was compelled to resign. It is important to note that Mr. Eich did not display anti-gay sentiments in or out of the workplace.

While it may be interesting, and occasionally useful, to know the names of donors, the chilling effect of reprisals is sufficient to justify anonymity. Why spend all that time and effort discussing the issues on their merits when you can just punish people who get in your way?