Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Your Daily Douchebag

Posted by on Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Joseph Backholm, Executive Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington:

Joseph_Backholm.jpg
A Lynnwood-based organization that opposes the state's domestic partnership law and is working to defeat Referendum 71 has filed suit in U.S. District Court in Tacoma seeking to circumvent campaign contribution limits of $5,000 and to keep secret the names of those who make smaller donations. [...]

The attorney for the Family Policy Institute of Washington, which filed the lawsuit through its newly formed Family PAC late Wednesday, acknowledged that there are substantial contributions in the offing that the campaign wants to accept but can't because of the limits.

So now that the large contribution deadline has passed for everyone else, Backholm's affiliate of Focus on the Family wants the state to change the rules—so they can flood a bigoted campaign with money—because bigots deserve special rights. Family Policy Institute of Washington (which claims Referendum 71 "threatens every citizen's freedom to disagree" and says that "discrimination is not only appropriate, it is necessary for survival") is the same group that poured $200,000 into the Vote Reject R-71 in the final days before the cutoff for large contributions. But they obviously have more. A few days before the deadline, Dave Mortenson, a conservative campaign consultant who filed the PAC funded by FPIW, said, "A bunch of individuals contacted me to see if we could raise some money really quick." He said, "I am not going to share who I’ve been talking to, but if we do get the money, we will report it." Are those religious groups, corporations, wealthy donors, I asked? "We are working them all," Mortenson said. He wouldn't tell me who those groups were then. And now, if the bigots get their way to keep donations secret, we'll never know.

If they must, the state's public disclosure commission should challenge this case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Special Rights for Bigots campaign is already going to D.C. to keep petition signers' names sealed (and I hope that the Supremes only accepted the case to settle the issue on the side of transparency). A state court already decided that donors' names must remain public. But this new federal case should languish in the court a while; regardless of the outcome, litigation will eat up every day before the election, so they'll never be able to spend their bigot bucks.

Photo graciously provided by FPIW.

 

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Stewie Griffin 1
I saw that guy smelling my dirty diapers last week!
Posted by Stewie Griffin on October 22, 2009 at 5:38 PM
2
I'd hate fuck him.
Posted by doug on October 22, 2009 at 5:54 PM
3
Definitely porkable.
Posted by Yeek on October 22, 2009 at 5:56 PM
4
The campaign donations law seems pretty cut-and-dry. If the judge is sane he'll dismiss this with prejudice. If you ask me they are desperate and panicked, and this is their Hail Mary pass.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on October 22, 2009 at 7:36 PM
5
"discrimination is not only appropriate, it is necessary for survival"

The FPIW went off on multiple philosophical tangents in that document, including the section from which the above quote was drawn. They turned it into a fucking semantics debate:

"In its most basic form, discrimination is simply a choice. People discriminate on the basis of cost, value, personal preference, convenience, comfort, competency, effectiveness, and danger to self and others. […] The law discriminates against people because of their age (voting laws, drinking laws,) income bracket (for tax purposes) physical disabilities (driving restrictions) and even their gender (women are not eligible for the draft). Most thoughtful people agree that discrimination is essential to life and orderly government. However, the word “discrimination” is frequently used in an effort to silence people whose opinions are not appreciated."

The FPIW's logic does not make the necessary connections to prove their point, and in fact the document is riddled with fallacies. But it doesn't change the fact that you presented the above quote wildly out of context, and that's just not good journalism. Not impressed, Mr. Holden.
Posted by Terry Nguyen on October 22, 2009 at 7:44 PM
6
#4

Honey - this is in FEDERAL court which means it is a CHALLENGE to state law. What state law means is shit - BUT - how does the premise muster vis a vis the CONSTITUTION of the United States.... that is the question before the Federal judge.

That is the role in this case.

Political free speech unfettered VS. state campaign laws.

Remember there is no concept in the US Constitution, proven by decisions and practice, more strongly protected than political free speech.

This could be a very big deal. IF the Supremes are in the mood for historic changes on this topic.

Remember they are more conservative than radical - way more - thanks to BUSHES ONE AND TWO.
Posted by Clyde Ronson on October 22, 2009 at 8:05 PM
Posted by jmahlon on October 22, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Sea J 8
I don't know why they need money anyway. If they are just doing God's will they shouldn't have to spend a cent.
Posted by Sea J on October 22, 2009 at 8:36 PM
very bad homo 9
Why is it SO IMPORTANT to them to take away people's rights? I just don't get why they care so deeply whether I can have a legal partnership or not.
Posted by very bad homo on October 22, 2009 at 9:24 PM
blackhook 10
This guy is a closet queer if there ever was one...just wait for him to pull a Ted Haggard or a Larry Craig.

No straight guy who is secure in his own sexuality has such a need to strike out against gays - who any rational person knows are no threat to anyone's 'family values'. What a fuckin' hypocrite.
Posted by blackhook on October 22, 2009 at 9:32 PM
11
The Lame List had "What's Weak this Week" and Eschaton has "Wanker of the Day", so I think "Your Daily Douchebag" has potential.
Posted by Mr. X on October 22, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Joe Szilagyi 12
Yeah, by the time this clears appeals, injunctions, suits, countersuits, and the US Supreme Court, it'll be 2010 and this money can't be legally brought into this campaign.

This is strictly publicity.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://www.joeszilagyi.com on October 22, 2009 at 11:25 PM
13
Their argument about discrimination not being a bad thing is valid, up to a point. Thing is, you can distinguish between discrimination that's fair (i.e. affirmative action) and unfair (i.e. based on race, religion - or lack of religion), whatever. The point is that their claim to be the good kind of discriminating is fucking leotarded, because they're fucking leotarded, and so are their claims about LGBT people somehow "deserving" to be discriminated against. And as for this guy's purported "hotness" or "fuckability", I find leoetardation to be a major turn-off, and anyone who wants to treat me as a subhuman because of my sexual orientation has GOT to be fucking leotarded. Ergo, he's a leotarded fuckwit I wouldn't fuck with somebody else's dick.
Posted by YTAH http://ytah.wordpress.com/ on October 23, 2009 at 12:55 AM
14
Their argument about discrimination not being a bad thing is valid, up to a point. Thing is, you can distinguish between discrimination that's fair (i.e. affirmative action) and unfair (i.e. based on race, religion - or lack of religion), whatever. However, their claim to be the good kind of discriminating is fucking leotarded, and so are their claims that LGBT people somehow "deserve" to be discriminated against. (Basically, it means they can't DISCRIMINATE between discrimination that's valid and discrimination that's bullshit.) And as for this guy's purported "hotness" or "fuckability", I find leotardation to be a major turn-off, and anyone who wants to treat me as a subhuman because of my sexual orientation has GOT to be fucking leotarded. Ergo, he's a leotarded fuckwit I wouldn't fuck with somebody else's dick.
Posted by YTAH http://ytah.wordpress.com/ on October 23, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Sargon Bighorn 15
Amazing. Given the bad blood these Radical Religious Extremists are indeed creating, maybe we should not know who contributed to Reject R-71 bigotry. Some raging homo-twink might bitch slap someone to death.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on October 23, 2009 at 1:01 AM
meowmeowkitty 16
@7 Thanks. I sent him a little message.
Posted by meowmeowkitty on October 23, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy