One Man's Extortion...
This summer, opponents of Prop 8, the California initiative to ban same-sex marriage, pushed a boycott of businesses that gave to the Yes on 8 campaign. At the time, supporters of the initiative were outraged. Now those supporters are adopting a version of the same game, sending a letter to donors to the No on 8 demanding they give to the yes side -- or receive negative publicity as "opponents of traditional marriage." And of course, the No on 8 side is outraged, calling this "blackmail."
It's always ugly when people or businesses face economic retaliation for their political views. But there's nothing illegal or wrong with the tactics. Your blogger's suggestion, to both sides: Boycott and threaten away. It won't make any difference in the result. This is a close race that should come down to turnout.
- Login to post comments


















Isn't this slightly different from a boycot?
The "NO ON 8" people didn't demand any money! I think that's an important difference.
However "NO ON 8" is sneaky! See what a Evangelical Minister has to say about them.
Not Sure There's Much Of a Difference
Both tactics -- the boycott, and the demand for an even amount of cash-- involved economic pressure. Both were unwise and ugly. The problem for both commands with any kind of coercive tactic is that it contradicts the messsages of both campaigns. The Yes folks are trying to talk about freedom of religion--the idea that people shouldn't be coerced into accepting same-sex marriage if it contradicts their faith. The No folks are arguing that not being permitted to marry the person you love is inherently wrong and coercive. Then both campaigns coerce. Both sides would be well-served to take a deep breath and re-think these coercive tactics. The point of these campaigns is to persuade--and I don't think boycotts or demands for campaign contributions persuades anyone. Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/