Ref. 71 backers ask state to seal names of campaign donors due to threats

The state later this month will decide whether to redact and seal the names, addresses and occupations of donors to Referendum 71 because of threats of violence against supporters, churches and even the government.

The request to remove the names was made last week by Protect Marriage Washington, the group backing the referendum to repeal a recently passed state law that would give gay and lesbian couples the same state-offered benefits as married couples.

The group asked the state Public Disclosure Commission for an emergency hearing so it could make a case for redacting names of donors that have already been made public under state law, and for sealing those yet to be released.

The PDC instead placed the group's request on the agenda for its regularly scheduled Aug. 27 meeting.

The PDC's Web site lists the names and hometowns of donors to all public campaigns and candidates, the amount of their contributions and their places of employment.

"It's very important to us that those participating in favor of R-71 not feel bullied and harassed and not have their lives and property threatened," said Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Protect Marriage Washington. "We've had guys threatening to break into churches and break windows."

He cited threats from e-mails and from at least one blog.

In that blog, Queer Equality Revolution, a man who identifies himself online as John Bisceglia rails against taxation, for gun possession and against those who would rob him of his civil rights.

"I advocate using violence against the property of ALL of those who are working tirelessly to HURT my family; starting with churches and government property," the 43-year-old from Bellingham wrote.

"Government is enabling a vote on whether or not I should be allowed to see my husband while he is dying in a hospital — any NORMAL man would be driven to get a gun and kill those who tried such evil cruelty against his loved ones."

In response to an e-mail requesting comment Tuesday, Bisceglia sent back links to his blog, where he had written, "As usual, people mis-read and over-react, as I NEVER 'urged people to get guns and kill,' although I DO believe in SELF-DEFENSE."

Protect Marriage Washington's request to redact the now-public names of its donors is the latest in what has become a heated campaign filled with threats, accusations and name-calling.

The secretary of state is expected by the end of the month to complete its ongoing hand check of the 137,689 signatures the group submitted in its attempt to get Ref. 71 on the November ballot. At least 120,577 of the signatures must be valid for the referendum to qualify.

And last month, a federal judge in Tacoma granted the group's request to temporarily block the secretary of state from publicly releasing the names and addresses of those who signed the referendum, including release to gay activists who have said they would post those names online.

Since May, Protect Marriage Washington has raised just over $32,000 — less than half the amount raised so far by Washington Families Standing Together, a coalition of religious, labor, community and gay-rights organizations seeking to retain the domestic partnership law.

Donors to Protect Marriage Washington are from all over the state and include retirees, homemakers, a corrections officer, a surgeon and a company president, among others.

Pidgeon said he's reported the threats to the FBI and to the sheriff's office in Whatcom County. "I don't think they care," he said.

Special Agent Fred Gutt said Tuesday that he was not aware of the case being referred to the FBI. He said that if the agency did receive a complaint, it would likely be referred to the state attorney general's office because it doesn't involve a federal election.

Requests to withhold donor information are not new — and the PDC has granted them in the past.

At least twice in the last 12 years, candidates from the Socialist Workers Party requested to withhold names of campaign donors, also citing threats.

In both cases, the campaigns had a less-stringent reporting requirement because they had chosen to limit the total amount they could collect to $5,000 — with a maximum of $500 from each contributor.

The PDC allowed the campaigns to use a code to conceal the identities of donors, although dollar amounts were still public.

In 1994, when the PDC was considering the requirement that campaigns disclose donor employer and occupation information, a gay-rights group objected, raising concerns similar to those now being voiced by Ref. 71 backers.

At the time, Hands Off Washington was fighting a pair of initiative campaigns aimed at blocking civil-rights guarantees for gays and lesbians, and said disclosing contributors' occupations and employers was like a "road map to mischief."

The PDC eventually rejected the argument and adopted the new reporting requirements.

Lornet Turnbull: 206-464-2420 or lturnbull@seattletimes.com