Mega-donations from rich donors in California and a handful of other states have ballooned the campaign fund for the effort to stop Proposition 8, with more than $2 million contributed in July alone.

No-on-8 consultant Steve Smith predicted in a press statement that the campaign will "more than match" the $10 million to $15 million that the Yes-on-8 effort intends to raise.

The No-on-8 campaign also claimed the support of labor unions, PG&E and small individual donors from California and other states.

"This is what we can expect," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage California, a supporter of the Protect Marriage coalition sponsoring Prop 8. "Everything is going to be coming from all around the country into the fight."

The Yes-on-8 campaign maintains that it is in a strong position to win in November, noting that the latest Field Poll showed a gain in support and a drop in opposition to the measure.

Prop 8 asks voters to overturn the California Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision in June giving same-sex couples the right to designate their unions as marriage. Supporters maintain that a majority of Californians opposes such a right and that the public will should prevail over a judicial interpretation.

The court struck down Proposition 22, which 61 percent of California voters approved in 2000.

The latest supporters of the No-on-8 effort include Word Perfect software inventor Bruce Bastian of Orem, Utah, who has pledged $1 million.

David Maltz, president of Double M Inc. in Cleveland, Ohio, made two contributions in July totaling $750,000.

Third was Beverly Hills tech mogul David Bohnett, with three contributions totaling $700,000.

Contributions to committees that oppose the amendment seeking to ban same-sex marriage as unconstitutional have come from nine states and the District of Columbia. The No-on-8 campaign has committees in San Francisco and Los Angeles, with a third committee under the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign becoming a growing force in fundraising.

Top contributors to the Yes-on-8 campaign include two evangelical Christian organizations from outside California: the American Family Association of Tupelo, Miss. ($500,000) and Focus on the Family of Colorado Springs (more than $400,000). Previously the national and state organizations of the Knights of Columbus contributed $275,000 to help the campaign gather enough names to qualify the measure for the ballot.

A number of wealthy California organizations and individuals, largely from Orange and San Diego counties, have contributed as well: Fieldstead and Co. of Irvine ($400,000), family members associated with Caster Family Enterprises of El Cajon (more than $200,000), Manchester Financial Group of San Diego ($125,000) and William Bolthouse of Avila Beach ($100,000.)

Protect Marriage listed $2.6 million in contributions in 2008 through June 30, with another $700,000 in July. The donations have come from California and more than 30 other states.

Brown said he expects the No-on-8 campaign to spend its money on television ads. He said the Yes-on-8 campaign plans to meet the challenge with a united front among faith groups.

"I think you are going to see a unity you might not have seen before with Catholics, Mormons, evangelicals, people of all faiths getting materials in their churches and being active," he said.

Prop 8 title reworded; sponsors sue
A rewording of Proposition 8 by California Attorney General Jerry Brown has prompted a lawsuit by supporters of the measure and a pledge to defend the change in court by opponents.

The original language by the measure's sponsors read: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The new ballot title reads: "Proposition 8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Initiative constitutional amendment."

The summary reads: "Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The measure also includes a fiscal impact statement, which states: "Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments."

The changes in the title and summary are "inherently argumentative" and could tilt voters against the measure, Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, told The Los Angeles Times.

Opponents said the change is appropriate because the measure seeks to overturn a right that the state Supreme Court established in June.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said his office will defend the change.

"The legal standard of review for summaries of measures submitted to voters --- which applies to local as well as state initiatives --- requires that the measure be described in an accurate and impartial manner," he said in a news release. "Only if the legal challenge proves by clear and convincing evidence that the title and summary are false, misleading or otherwise unlawful will a court reject the Attorney General's language."