A backlash to the backlash

The Wall Street Journal has an Op-Ed saying campaign donor disclosure laws should be repealed. Their evidence is the several people and businesses who suffered real harm when their donations to the Calif. marriage ban came to light -- like a theater director who resigned when gay playwrights were appalled at his donation. They say that we have secret ballots for a reason, so that the losers can't intimidate those who voted against them. In addition, the law is to make sure that legislators aren't beholden to large donors and there are no legislators in the case of a proposal.

In reply gay commentators are saying this isn't about free speech -- you will still be allowed to buy as much speech as you can afford -- but about owning your speech. You can say anything you want but you should take the consequences of those who are offended. Besides, it works both ways -- before the election businesses who opposed the ban received letters trying to blackmail them into donating to the ban as well.

There are many people (even today) who would vote for policies to take rights away from blacks. Such proposals don't get on the ballot because supporters know what would happen if their support were public knowledge. The effort to repeal the disclosure laws is part of laying the groundwork when the marriage ban comes up for a vote again. Ban supporters won't raise as much money if donors are made public with such a public backlash.

Of course, readers of the WSJ have a higher level of income than readers of most other papers and would much prefer to control things in secret.

If I remember right, Bayard Rustin, gay colleague to Martin Luther King said that we won't be able to eliminate racism (or homophobia), but we can change the world enough so that such attitudes are not mentioned in polite society.