I remember after the voting was complete on Prop 8, the "other" side boldly stated they were going after anyone on the list. They took out a symphony director in Sacramento not too long ago who had been on the list.
But the fact that the law was adopted in California right after Prop 8 suggests it was specifically for the purpose of exposing and demonizing those who supported Prop 8. Doesn’t that make questionable the content neutrality of the law?
You are right about that,
How did people find out that Mozilla’s CEO donated to support Prop 8?
posted at 7:21 pm on April 3, 2014 by Allahpundit
I’d been hearing reports from a group (prior to this event) on radio as they continue to seek investigation, which is why I sought confirmation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_scandal#Allegations_of_document_leaks
Allegations of document leaks
The National Organization for Marriage has alleged that the IRS intentionally leaked its 2008 tax return, including donor lists — an act prohibited by federal law.[71][72][73] In a lawsuit filed on May 15, 2013, NOM alleged that, in the words of chairman John C. Eastman, “This wasn’t a low-level error in judgment; it was a conscious act to reward a prominent Obama supporter while punishing an opponent.”[74][75] However, former NOM chairwoman Maggie Gallagher stated on May 10, 2013, that an IRS employee had been duped into releasing the documents by someone who fraudulently claimed to work for NOM.[76] However, she later stated that that was “only a theory”, and that she believed the matter needs further investigation.
During the period in which the applications were being scrutinized, the Cincinnati office of the IRS violated policy by releasing nine confidential pending applications from conservative groups to ProPublica, an investigative reporting organization.[18] ProPublica had made a records request to the office seeking only completed applications, which are public information.