Is there another version of this? A map that shows and locates all the people that voted and donated money against Prop 8?

Sounds a lot like what happened last year when the membership list for the BNP (far-right political party in the UK) got leaked (there were Google Maps mashups for that too), except in this case the people who donated should have been aware of the law and so they have no grounds for complaint.

If you require privacy-- illegal privacy-- to hide behind? THEN PERHAPS YOU SHOULD RECONSIDER YOUR OPINIONS. Oh & besides that, what ever happened to the courage of your convictions? Seriously-- I understand the power of the anonymous vote, & I'm all for it. This isn't about the anonymous vote, this is about MONEY. & when money & politics mix, I'm all for absolute transparency.

I was staunchly against prop 8 and I think it needs to be repealed. That being said, this is a bit too much to post individuals names and information in an easily accessible format. I think it's fine to have such info on the public record, but to have it where anyone with even a passing interest can track down individuals is creepy and seems to only intimidate people into not saying anything. This should be viewed as going too far.

On the other hand, something like this for businesses and business owners is more than acceptable. I wouldn't want to give my money to a company that supports beliefs that I am adamantly against.

@mordicai:

"If you require privacy– illegal privacy– to hide behind? THEN PERHAPS YOU SHOULD RECONSIDER YOUR OPINIONS."

Isn't this exactly the same kind of logic the right would use to justify intimidating women going into Planned Parenthoods?

Andrew Sullivan's argument against privacy ("shouldn’t they be proud . . .") is also an argument against the secret ballot in elections. Keith is right -- the Internet and computers make a huge difference. it's one thing when "public" information is on file somewhere, and it takes some effort to dig it out. It's another matter when you can sit in your living room and browse through all sorts of information about your friends, relatives, and neighbors.

I followed a link from HuffingtonPost to a site on primary election donations and discovered that a neighbor, who I'm pretty sure is gay, had donated $200 to McCain. And now, like the guy with the aunt in San Diego, I feel kind of creepy about knowing that.

If you don't think the major political organizations already had this information in highly processed and accessible formats, I have a bridge to sell you.

What the internet does is democratize that access. The reason political donations, unlike voting, are matters of public record is that it is an exercise of economic power. By giving money to a political cause you are not simply condoning that point of view, you are actively supporting the matter with your capitalism-granted privilege. I believe that politics are like plants; they both grow better with sunlight.

Going to a Planned Parenthood is absolutely different from contributing money to a political campaign. I'm not saying that lists of every person who goes into Rick Warren's church should be published. Saying that making information that is legally required to be public ACTUALLY ACCESSABLE is a far cry from that. Political contributions move from private life to public life, by their very nature.

@ Keith
Prop 8 outers have the legal right to obtain and share this information. There is nothing about the nature of this information that NECESSARILY leads to the intimidation or harassment of the outed. If some people are inspired by this information to harass and intimidate, then those people should be prosecuted for their acts of harassment and intimidation, which are clearly illegal. The dissemination and consumption of this information themselves, however, are acts that affect only the disseminator and the consumer themselves, and are not illegal.

Most of the Prop 8 donors in my neighborhood are no surprise--they're the same houses that had multiple "Yes on 8" signs (and some of them also had Romney signs during the primaries--seriously, Romney in California on Super Tuesday?!?!). I know some of them are LDS, because it's come up in casual conversations on the playground or at school events. If you know your neighborhood and make an effort to meet your neighbors, you probably won't be too shocked by these maps.

I agree with Beth--this isn't secret information, it's already out there by law, and being used by marketers and political campaigns. If you made a political contribution under any other assumption, that's your mistake.

Voting or speaking out are not the same as donating money, so this issue isn't about intimidating people so they don't 'speak out.'

Donations are crucial to the advancement of any political agenda, and while the choices an individual ultimately makes at the voting booth should be kept confidential, it is in the interest of the voter to be as accurately informed as possible about what they are voting for (or against).

Plenty of campaigns have been run dishonestly and/or have been designed to mislead, but the sources of funding for a particular candidate or in support of (or against) a particular ballot measure tend to reveal the actual agendas, biases, or vested interests behind the campaign instead of merely the stated ones. Without that information, a voter can't be said to be 'informed' and so can't vote for their own perceived best interest, and the interests of the voter must outweigh the interests of any particular political group if a process is to be called 'democratic.'

Financial transparency (among other types) has entered a new era thanks to the internet, though it still has a long way to go for the playing field to be truly level.

A lot of people in positions of power seem to be having trouble accepting that there's no reversing this trend of increasing interconnectivity and the scrutiny it can bring, but until they do their political strategies will be increasingly obsolete and ineffective.

The logical conclusion (to me anyway) of our society's exponentially-increasing complexity and interconnectivity will ultimately be an elimination of the very concept of 'privacy.' Hard to say if that will be good or bad; it might usher in an entirely new and more egalitarian approach to morals and ethics or it might enforce a soul-crushing conformity fueled by the paranoia of always potentially 'being watched.' However it evolves, we're going to have to deal with it soon. Plenty of people who have digital cameras, bad judgement, and Myspace pages have confronted the early stages of this already.

@Beth

Ding ding ding!

The organizations involved likely already have this data. Besides, assuming one is okay with the data being accessible at all, why shouldn't it be okay to broaden that access? This argument seems to boil down to a kind of elitism where only those with the know-how can get to the information. Do we not trust anyone with an Internet connection with this "sensitive" information?

@Caroline

"Prop 8 outers have the legal right to obtain and share this information. There is nothing about the nature of this information that NECESSARILY leads to the intimidation or harassment of the outed."

I'm quite aware it's legal, but I just find it scary that information like this is so accessible. It seems that due to your emphasis of the word "NECESSARILY" that it at least COULD lead to intimidation or harassment.

Like I said before, I am very much against prop 8, and I don't exactly have sympathy for the supporters. But, at the same time, I imagine some pro-8 people or other anti-gay marriage groups compiling a similar list, and that thought honestly frightens me.

@Matt K
Personally, I DON'T trust anyone with an internet connection with this information, sensitive or not. I also don't trust anyone with an internet connection with my phone number and mailing address, which can be looked up, but takes some effort to find. You see the argument as boiling down to an elitism issue, trying to keep information in one spot, but the other way to look at it is an issue of giving the information to only those who really care. Looking up files on public record is not hard, and obviously somebody did it, but the concern isn't about those who really care, but about those who only slightly care.

And think about the people who are outed... Wouldn't this give them cause to not be involved with other political issues if they know their contributions can be accessed incredibly easily?

Here's another way to think about it... What if some newspaper company printed the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all people who donated to prop 8? Would that be going too far? And if so, how is that different than compiling an easily accessible database on the internet for everyone to see?

Even if displaying this info was an invasion of privacy, prop 8 is an invasion of the privacy, this is the least that could be done. Shaming is an important part of society, be it a scarlet A, the address of sex offenders, or this. It's easy to discriminate anonymously but once it's out in the open people can treat people accordingly.

people here seem to be arguing as if this information was locked in a dusty file cabinet in the bottom of city hall or something. it's not. it's been on the SF chronicle's website for months, and it's the first google hit when you type in "prop 8 donations" (as i just did).

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/?Search+Again=%5C

which also includes the people who donated to no on 8.

i think there's some queasy immediacy to this information, but it's public and easily accessible information via the web and has been for quite some time. in fact, the more arguments i read against it being available in this format, the more comfortable i get with it being up, since they aren't very good -- despite my initial "i don't know about this" reaction.

hitlist

A group in Massachusetts did something similar in 2005, but that was more in response to some bait and switch tactics that were being used to get signatures on an anti-gay ballot measure. Citizens were being asked to sign a petition about removing some restrictions on the sale of wine in grocery stores, and inadvertently signed a petition to get gay marriage on the ballot. So, names were published on the internet so that you could check to see if you had signed the petition in error, and then take further action. The info is at http://www.knowthyneighbor.org/index.html.

Because this was a case of fraud, I think that the ethics around it are different than outing donors to the Prop 8 campaign, but theoretically one could find similar information about their neighbors. Thoughts?

be it a scarlet A

...maybe not the best example of public shaming being used appropriately... :p

@msliberty

"Isn’t this exactly the same kind of logic the right would use to justify intimidating women going into Planned Parenthoods?"

If this logic is used, it is not at all correct. Our right to access legal medical procedures is not public information. Accessing safe medical care with the expectation of privacy is not even close to making a financial donation to a political cause.

We are gifted with Intelligence, which allows us to make our own choices in life. If someone chose to give money for a cause they believe in, then they should step up to it and take the consequences! Weather they are good or bad.
"Every action has a Reaction"

Why should people be allowed to support something in secret? Is that not dishonest? Would it not be horrible if we had a President/Leader that gave money to Terrorists or Oil Companies behind our backs and never had to step up to it?

Gay people also face shame and repercussions when they come out, so why can't these people "come out" and admit to be homophobes and then deal with the opposite opinions and with the negative responses?

I have to wonder if Sullivan would react similarly to a Google map that outs homosexuals. After all, if the gay lifestyle is just as good and legitimate as the straight one, why aren't gay people proud of it, and want everyone under the sun to know? Or would the logic suddenly not seem to persuasive?