| In the interest of speed and timeliness, this story is fed directly from the Associated Press newswire and may contain spelling or grammatical errors. |
SACRAMENTO (AP) Major contributors to the campaign for Proposition 54, the so-called racial privacy initiative, will remain secret, as a Sacramento judge ruled Friday to deny a request by the state's political watchdog to have the names disclosed.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Thomas Cecil ruled that the Fair Political Practices Commission failed to make a strong enough case that voters will suffer if they don't know who provided the financial muscle behind Proposition 54 before the Oct. 7 election.
In a clear setback to the FPPC, Cecil said donors to the group that financed the campaign could suffer worse potential harm from an invasion of their privacy.
The FPPC sought court action to force University of California Regent Ward Connerly and his American Civil Rights Coalition to name donors behind Proposition 54 before the election. The FPPC charged that Connerly is violating state campaign finance law by not reporting the sources of $1.9 million that provided most of the initiative's financial support.
Cecil's ruling Friday was not the final say on the matter, as the FPPC said it would appeal. Representatives of the commission, formed to monitor California campaign spending after the 1970s Watergate scandal, but said victory after the election would bring only fines.
``I think we'll win our case. It's just that voters won't have disclosure before the election,'' said FPPC chairwoman Liane Randolph.
That could change if the election is delayed until March. But Friday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to reconsider its Monday decision by a three-judge panel to delay the election.
Connerly's forces claimed ``vindication'' for their claim that naming donors would subject them to harassment by opponents of Proposition 54, which would ban public agencies from collecting and using many types of racial data. Connerly said contributors to his 1996 initiative campaign, Proposition 209 to ban affirmative action in California, were harassed.
Charles Bell, Connerly's attorney, called the FPPC suit ``outrageous,'' adding that Cecil's ruling Friday was clear that donors to the civil rights coalition weren't necessarily donating to Proposition 54. That, Bell said, exempts them from campaign reporting requirements.
^ :
On the Net: Read the FPPC complaint at http://www.fppc.ca.gov