I’m no lawyer but I have to admit, when I first saw that the Alliance Defense Fund had filed a class-action suit on behalf of Prop 8 donors that sought to have a campaign finance law declared unconstitutional, I was skeptical.

Sunshine being the best disinfectant, I wondered how ADF could possibly argue that it is in the government’s best interests to keep private certain information about political donors. The answer lies in the complaint ADF filed in the U.S. District Court of eastern California.

The first several pages of the complaint list the players and the general gripe, which is that California’s Political Reform Act of 1974 is unconstitutional because its disclosure requirements stifle free speech and participation in the political process. How? Because the law’s reporting requirements require disclosure of donors’ private information, including their full name and street address, and in many cases, their occupation and the name of their employer.

This information is published online — perennially.

ADF’s complaint gets really interesting when you get down to paragraph 31. That’s when you start to read some of the verbatim threats Prop 8 donors have received at their homes and businesses from gay activists and their supporters.

Example: “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter. . . . I’ve also got a little surprise for Pasor [sic] Franklin and his congregation of lowlife’s [sic] in the coming future. . . . He will be meeting his maker sooner than expected. . . . If you thought 9/11 was bad, you haven’t seen anything yet.”

Some threats were so foul they can’t be reprinted here.

Still, ugly threats from the Tolerant Class don’t, in themselves, don’t make a campaign finance law unconstitutional. So I kept reading. And, beginning in paragraph 59, the core of ADF’s argument begins to take shape.

In a case called Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an organization can make “an uncontroverted showing that on past occasions revelation of the identity of its rank-and-file members had exposed [those] members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility,” the state’s interests furthered by disclosure may be outweighed by greater First Amendment concerns.”

Interesting.

So, while ugly threats may not make a law unconstitutional, if a law’s disclosure requirements place political participants in the way of certain harms, that might do the trick.

Now that I’ve done some of the legwork for you, take a look at ADF’s complaint and weigh in on whether you think their argument has legs.