The Minnesota Campaign Finance Board is standing by its decision to grant anonymity to a person who made a donation to a group working to defeat a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.
The board heard a complaint on the ruling today from Teresa Graham, who argued that there isn't clear and convincing evidence that the donor would lose his job with the Catholic Church if his name was made public. The board ruled the donor can stay anonymous but Graham argued the law should be the same for everyone. She said more than 30 other people associated with the Catholic Church contributed to groups on both sides of the ballot initiative and are identified in campaign finance reports.
[...] It's likely that Graham's complaint will be heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Gary Goldsmith, executive director of the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board, said individuals are entitled to privacy in some instances. He called the exception unique.
"This isn't going to be a slippery slope. We have one person in a unique position with a unique employer that feels a threat to their employment. We haven't seen others so I don't think there is a risk of this ballooning into many requests."
But Goldsmith said that the group working to pass the amendment has also inquired as to whether a possible donor could remain anonymous.
From that, the Crabgrass headline extrapolates. Is it in any way at all an unreasonable extrapolation? Or is it the same principle of a basic freedom not to be undermined by employment risk?
A caveat. It appears a preliminary decision is reported, with an appellate process yet to be explored where a reversal is a distinct possibility. But what of the conflicted public worker, seeing a Walker-like stalking of the payroll, with perhaps a candidate less inclined that way contesting a payroll chopping zealot? What then?
_________UPDATE_________
As in most things, ambivalence applies in the public payroll question. It is likely any payroll beyond two or three employees of a marginal venture can be contested as inflated. I believe Ramsey's mayor noted payroll as the major expense in the town. While Ramsey police positions may have not suffered the decimation shown at other levels, engineering for example where a kludged contract engineering situation has been instituted, all payroll can be viewed under the presently less-favored term, "featherbedding," used when rail train staff contractions were contested years ago.
Problems arise when the wrong people are targeted, either because of politics, or inability to distinguish the good from the bad among a workforce. Experience and success in the private sector can be weighed by voters if there are contesting candidates and the "public payroll" issue exists. Those running successful long-term businesses in the private sector may have insights and judgment lacking in others.
Attention to payroll costs should be expected of any official, and it usually is the case that officials are attentive. However, obsessive will to unwisely contract a payroll based on ideology, ignorance or misjudgment is always a risk, and one voters should recognize in making ballot choices.