Fate of Mozilla CEO illustrates importance of donor anonymity

If you want to put your career and standing as a public figure at risk, it appears that there is no quicker path to destruction than to take on the gay rights lobby these days. Just ask the now-former CEO of Mozilla who just resigned due to pressure put on him as a result of a $1,000 contribution he made to a 2008 California ballot measure that banned gay marriage in that State (at least until the Courts got hold of it).

Regardless of your position on gay marriage (I share Jonah Goldberg’s view on the issue), this state of affairs where you have to toe the, now popular line on any public issue, is downright scary. More importantly, this kind of debacle provides an excellent argument on behalf of those, like us, who support donor privacy and understand the need to keep at least some donations to politicians and public issue campaigns private.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 Replies to “Fate of Mozilla CEO illustrates importance of donor anonymity”

  1. You are right, it’s pretty scary to be made to uphold new untested laws that seem to have sprung from Zeus’s head without public debate. Gay marriage? There are no credible studies that address the effects on children raised by a man posing as a mother or a woman posing as a father. Traditional marriages were communal affairs with personal “love” not necessary in most cultures. A framework for moulding individuals that would strengthen group cohesiveness and survival.

    By 1980, most states had adopted No Fault divorce laws. The devastating effects on children, most of whom never completely emotionally recover from their parents divorce (not to mention the financial hardships if raised by a single mother), are well documented.

    1. I didn’t say I opposed gay marriage and I don’t, but we’ve gotten to the point where to even criticize or be on the other side means putting your career in jeopardy. My point is on donor anonymity and the case of the Mozilla CEO’s losing his job because of a $1,000 donation. The left is constantly screaming about conservative groups like RGF not disclosing their donors. This is a great example of why the laws were written and interpreted to protect donor privacy. That’s all.

      1. Kinda sneaky Paul. Why would you not wish to disclose your faith in your candidate through dollars? Have you never heard “Put your money where your mouth is.” Mozillas success depends upon our youth trying to understand what happened to their generation. The first that could not depend on doing better than their parents. They lack elders guidance and are totally irreverent.

        1. It’s not sneaky. I just think people should be able to vote on the candidate they prefer and donate to that candidate without worrying about losing one’s job or social standing.

  2. Addendum: Both the California and New York courts referred to Martha Nussbaum’s (Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago ) Essay: Digust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and the Constitution – 2010, in their court rulings on Same Sex Marriage. She lists four questions state courts should consider:

    1. Would civil unions answer the civil rights issue?
    2. Consider due process and equal protection.
    3. Does the State forbidding such unions have to show a mere rational basis for the law or a compelling state interest?
    4. What interests would qualify?

    Fundamental Rights Wikipedia: Restrictions on civil rights are evaluated with strict scrutiny. If a right is denied to everyone it is an issue of substantive due process. If a right is denied to some individuals but not others it is also an issue of equal protection. However any action that abridges a right deemed fundamental, when also violating equal protection. Is still held to the overriding standard of strict scrutiny instead of a rational basis test. Strict Scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review in the United States.

    To date no top notch attorney has argued against gay marriage. I strongly believe the State has a compelling interest implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.