The letter is right there to read.

Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have give to Equality California will be published.

I’ll let others decide whether it was, as you say, an invitation for clarification.

Which, if any facts, in my comment do you believe to be disputable?

Please be precise.

* * *

You asserted:

The letter demanded money in exchange for not being included on a list. Were this outside the political sphere, those who signed the letter would already be in jail.

You made an allegation of criminal behavior. No charges have been made by the proper authorities. Neither the No campaign nor the company involved has pressed for charges.

If you think they should go to jail, then, present your evidence and press for criminal charges on behalf of your readership and all the people who’d agree with you about this.

But you haven’t and you won’t because you can’t.

What you can do, instead, is build-in an excuse that this letter rests in the “political sphere” — and yet, Timothy, that is the problem with your complaint overall.

The letter was for political fundraising. Your interpretation of it is highy prejudiced. A reasonable person would recognize that a case was made in that letter for the company’s neutrality and for supporting the Yes side. No threat to silence the company was made.

To the contrary, the No campaign had publicized the company’s financial contribution. The letter was a response to that publicity. The letter invited clarification.

THAT clarification — the company’s position of neutrality or of taking sides (one way or the other) — would be underscored should the Yes side publish THAT clarification.

No demand for silence was made. No threat was made. If anything the Yes side would make the company’s policy known — it would amplify the company’s voice on this ballot issue.

“We respectfully request that Abbot & Associates withdraw it’s support of Equality California. Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error and restore Traditional Marriage. A donation form is enclosed. We will be most grateful and will advertise on our website Abbot & Associates generous contribution.”

They clearly wanted the company to stop supporting No on Prop 8, and to start supporting Yes.

and here’s the punch:

“Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.“

Now, the names of whoever donated to either side is a matter of public record. While it would be easy to pull the data and figure it out for yourself, that’s not what Yes on 8 was planning.

It’s one thing for a person to look at public records, find out who donated, and tell their friends and readers. It’s another for the campaign to use the donations as an attempt to get funds and attempt to shame those who do not give.

Was No on 8 doing anything of the kind with CMT? No, it was individual people, none of whom were in the leadership of No on 8.

You are factually mistaken.

The letter demanded money in exchange for not being included on a list. Were this outside the political sphere, those who signed the letter would already be in jail.

And if, by chance, you think that this letter reflects favorably on the Yes on 8 Campaign, then by all means print out dozens of copies and give them to everyone you know. Go on, spread that “compassionate and peaceful” message.

Please.

No threat hung over the company’s head.

The letter asks if, by that contribution, the company had chosen sides.

If not, then, a like contribution to the Yes side would be more even-handed especially since their clientle was split on the issue — the elecotrate evenly divided.

If the contribution to the No side was a demonstration of showing the company had picked a side on this issue, then, the Yes side would underline what the No side had already advertized.

To publish, in this case, is not to punish. It is to clarify. In fact, the letter would be followed-up for confirmation.

To emphasize the confirmation, if the Yes side chose to do so, would not be a punishment. So the explanation does not stand as a threat, much as extortion.

Note that the representative of Abbot & Associates said he had chosen sides. That a quarter of his employees, he said, were gay and lesbian. Fair enough.

Anyway, the company acted with the confidence that Yes supporters would not crowd into the company’s head office and put on something reminiscent of a Soviet show trial.

And the Yes supporters, to their credit, have not done such a thing.

The activist voices on the No side are clamoring for a blacklist against individuals who contributed even small amounts to the Yes campaign — and, by association, the employers of those individuals — and the religious organizations of those individuals.

The supporters of the No side keep showing that the Yes side was right.

Go ahead, push for political retribution with frivolous accusations of blackmail and extortion.

Even the fanciful suggestion, much less an actual attempt to charge blackmail or extortion, would help clarify the compassionate and peaceful message the No side would like to deliver to your fellow citizens.

Especially in the aftermath of losing yet another popular vote in which you had millions of dollars worth of bias in the major newsmedia in California.

The clarity of such message would be welcomed by all freedom-loving and tolerant Americans.

You do bring up a good point in your final sentence.

The Yes on 8 Campaign has been based entirely on ignoring facts, law, legal opinion, and precedent and instead believing what they want to believe. It doesn’t matter if every reputable authority says that schools and churches are not impacted in any way by Proposition 8, they believe what they want to believe.

And its the same with their supporters. It doesn’t matter if the Yes on 8 Campaign admits to sending blackmail letters, those who are looking for justification will believe what they want to believe. And it doesn’t matter if they know deep in their hearts that this effort is based on discrimination and on a desire to force secular society to like according to the rules of a few religious organizations, they will believe what they want to believe.

What do you believe, Quiquincho? It’s your choice.