I'm not sure the issue is really about privacy. Let's go on a small tangent here.
Do you know why secret voting is considered important for democracy? In fact, it's seen as a good feature of a voting system if a voter cannot prove to a third party that they voted a certain way, even if they really want to.
The reason is that democracy works best if your vote is a free expression of your political views, and can't be easily influenced by money or threats. If you have the option of proving your vote to a third party, then the third party can bribe or extort you. If you don't, they can't. (Of course there are more complicated vote buying schemes, but it's worth having some safeguards against the simplest one, at least.)
Note that we don't just have laws that stop the government from buying people's votes, because the government is not the only actor that can buy people's votes. We also want to stop third parties from doing completely legal things that add up to vote buying or vote extortion.
As you can see, the issue isn't really about privacy. The issue is that people should be free to support the political movements they like, and not be punished for it. If you make it harder for people to support the political movements they like, even if your actions are completely legal, you'll get fewer people supporting the movements they like, and more people supporting the movements that others tell them to support. In other words, you get less democracy and more mob rule, or "rule by social pressure" if you prefer. I'm not saying that "rule by social pressure" is a bad system, it might even be better than democracy in some ways, but you have to be honest with yourself if that's what you really support.
And that's why I think attacking Eich for his donation is wrong.
When it comes to combating interests, the powerful have money, the masses have numbers. Social pressure is not less democratic, it IS democratic in its purest form - it's a group of people standing up for what they believe in. To dissuade social pressure is to defend the status quo. I would much rather have noisy, angry cantankerous democratic debates than a world that purely does what it is told.
And I would also prefer more civilized, structured and rational debate on public policies such as these to the angry/noisy pressure approach. But the disagreements themselves aren't rational, and the powerful have long used their power to dissuade such debate from occurring lest people recognize their irrationality. So you get noise.
> Social pressure is not less democratic, it IS democratic in its purest form - it's a group of people standing up for what they believe in.
I think I slightly disagree with you on that as well, but it's a subtle point so it's okay if people miss it. Basically, by your standards civil war would be the most democratic thing ever. Groups standing up for what they believe in! Yeah! But to me democracy is at least partly about preventing civil war, like ritualized aggression prevents killing in the animal world. Two armies agree to settle the conflict by counting the soldiers on each side, instead of having a battle, and agree to not escalate the conflict if they lose. In other words, if you pressure your political opponents by any means outside the political process, then you're moving away from democracy as I see it. (Though of course there are Prisoner's Dilemma considerations because your opponents might use these tactics even if you don't.)
As for civil wars, you're right to a point, it is an extreme form of democracy... IF they're about the populace vs. an illegitimate minority ruling class that's blocking the will of the people. Civil wars are usually fought about who has the power to rule who, so it's all about ultimately conflicting ideologies anyway! The French Revolution was democracy in action against Le Ancien Régime, but as with any revolt, it can (and was) be perverted to create a new autocracy. The American Civil War was also due to disagreements about the scope of democracy at a regional level, with regards to slavery. Other civil wars were driven by religion, etc. that might be a minority vs. a majority (usually the majority wins, unless they don't have the guns).
Complicating matters is that one of the reasons the US (in theory) has a stable Federalist government is the checks and balances AGAINST democracy: representative government, term limits, states rights, separate judiciary and executive from legislators, different voting cadences for house, senate, and president, etc. This deliberately favours minority protection and slows progress / stabilizes the system in the face of intense disagreement in the hopes that the political process won't break down as compromises are slowly made. It's hard to argue for civil war if there's always an election coming up. Though at some point it might not work and we'll be back to civil war, especially if we ever truly get to a 50/50-ish democratic split on irreconcilable ideological grounds and have gridlock (i.e. I fear another decade of today's political situation).
When the political movement has as its sole and only goal depriving a subset of the population of a basic right, your argument falls apart. And that was the goal of Proposition 8.
Additionally, freedom to speak comes with the freedom of others to shun you for what you say, or to speak freely in condemning your opinions. It cannot be a one-way street.
If you think it should be put up for vote, be prepared to put your right up for vote first.
The parties, in return, must submit yearly financial statements to the legislature. In these, only contributors of more than €10,000 per year must be named. (...) In addition, the accounting responsibilities of the parties free individual members and candidates from burdensome paperwork, while the focus of the disclosure rules on large donors protects the privacy of candidates, elected officials, and small donors.
In general I agree with the view expressed by Kent Pitman (famous Lisp hacker) here: http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2010/11/06/on_the_pri... . Basically he says privacy outweighs transparency for small donations, but not large ones. In particular, he mentions Keith Olbermann being suspended by his employer for making a small donation similar to Eich's.
If you want to argue that the Campaign for Prop. 8 shouldn't have to be forced to divulge who made small donations, we can discuss that. But that doesn't imply that we should bury our heads and ignore information which is already public (and which the donors knew was to be published).
Do you have a loved one? Suppose I use my political clout to separate you from them, permanently. You can never see your partner again.
Do you think I should be punished for such behavior?
I think you should be applauded for enacting laws that make it possible to protect a woman from an abusive man, or for locking up dangerous criminals.
Your example is a bit too vague to be useful.
Obviously I'm trying to draw a parallel between homosexual relationships being deemed as deviant or second-class and something the parent may have understood, namely the pain of being separated from a loved one for no reason.
What even is the difference between personal & professional life? Performing actions during working hours, or while simply being employed by the company?
I feel this lack of demarcation is a big part of the argument, it's such a fuzzy and wishy washy line that nobody agrees upon.
And so I think the issue is that, while a political opinion can be considered part of the private realm, it's not unfounded to consider a contribution to a political campaign - which has a direct impact in society - as part of the public realm, and hence open to scrutiny.
To construct an analogy regarding that Eich guy: It would of course be problematic if he was connected in some way to Microsoft or Oracle. Paid speaking engagements come to mind as an example.
I think your point has some merit, but playing Devil's advocate, if one considers this an humans rights issue - which many people do -, isn't it close to every organization?
You are of course right in that human rights issues are special. But there are also other human rights issues for which this could be done.
The death penalty comes to mind.
Also, Mozilla is a worlwide organization. Why does this become so important now, when the US has changed opinions on homosexuality? In some parts of the world, gay marriage has been accepted by the mainstream for years now and there are other parts of the world where it will not be acceptable for a very long time.
Sure, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar backlash had him donated to the campaign against Proposition 34. But how is that an argument against the current issue?
Also, Mozilla is a worlwide organization. Why does this become so important now, when the US has changed opinions on homosexuality? In some parts of the world, gay marriage has been accepted by the mainstream for years now and there are other parts of the world where it will not be acceptable for a very long time.
Because it was now that Mozilla elected a CEO who donated to a campaign against gay marriage? I don't get your point.
Would the voters be so lenient if those chancellors had donated $1000 to an NPD campaign instead?
I'm European as well, and I agree (and like) that we are relatively unconcerned about our leaders' personal lives, but I don't think that contributions to political campaigns would be considered "private life", at least in our small corner of the continent.
EDIT: Curiously, we recently had a similar situation: the director of our biggest food bank (an NGO) gave an interview were she said that we must "re-learn to live poorer", that we "can't eat steak every day if we can't afford it" and that "we are poorer, but there's no poverty".
The interview did originate a major backlash, including a petition pushing for her resignation from the organization (which didn't happen).
So at least in some Europeans countries, political views exposed in public aren't considered just private issues.