Aug. 14 Daily News editorial

Backers of Referendum 71 say they fear for the safety of those who have donated to their campaign to repeal Washington’s recently expanded domestic partnership law. The group Protect Marriage Washington is asking the state Public Disclosure Commission to withhold the names of the donors. The PDC refused to do so on Tuesday, saying the donor names are a public record subject to disclosure, but agreed to hear arguments from the ballot measure’s backers on Aug. 27.

The PDC’s initial response was the right one, and commissioners should stick to it. The public has a compelling interest in knowing who is paying for initiative and referendum campaigns.

We don’t discount the safety concerns raised by the proponents of R-71. The political climate seems to have turned especially angry this summer. August town halls are generating far more heat than light. And the issue R-71 addresses — the legal rights of same-sex partners — is especially volatile. Indeed, some gay citizens take this effort to repeal their domestic partnership rights very personally. Associated Press writer Rachel La Corte reported that an attorney for the R-71, Stephen Pidgeon informed the PDC of a posting on the Web site Queer Equality Revolution threatening violence “against the property of ALL of those who are working tirelessly to HURT may family ….” Pidgeon also cited several threatening e-mails received by members of the campaign.

Threatening Internet postings and e-mails understandably alarm many in the R-71 campaign. Washington Families Standing Together, an organization opposing the referendum, rightly condemned any such threats of violence — as should everyone in this democratic and mostly civil society. Reasoned and respectful discourse is essential to good government. So is transparency.

The transparency provided by disclosure of contributors to initiative and referendum campaigns is very important to the initiative and referendum process. Knowing where the money comes from for these campaigns, in fact, has become more important in recent years.

Historically, the initiative and referendum process has served a valuable role as a kind of safety valve for grassroots sentiment — a way for voters to take things into their own hands. But with the emergence of paid signature gatherers and wealthy interests ready to pour money into campaigns, the process has strayed from its populist, grassroots origin.

Increasingly, the popularity of an initiative or referendum isn’t so much the deciding factor in the measure’s success as is special interest money. Today, if a special interest or individual has the money, it’s possible to literally buy an initiative’s way onto the ballot and its success at the polls.

Consider billionaire Paul Allen’s successful 1997 referendum on a new Seattle Seahawks football stadium. Allen invested $12 million in the effort, including $4 million to pay for the special election. In return, voters agreed to pay a good part of the stadium’s $425 million construction costs.

Voters seemed happy enough with the bargain and satisfied with the result. They knew who was paying and for what. There was total transparency in that election. That’s important. Voters need to know who is backing what when they go to the polls. Is the initiative or referendum funded by just a few wealthy interests or largely with money from out-of-state? Funding sources must be identified, if citizens are to make informed choices. There should be no exception to the state public records law for R-71 donors.