NOM Spent 86K To Defeat A Pro-NOM Candidate And Failed

Jim Burroway

September 2nd, 2009

This just doesn’t make sense. As Timothy reported, the National Organization for Marriage threw $86,000 to Iowa State House candidate Stephen Burgmeier to give the pro-NOM candidate more than a 3:1 advantage over his opponent, Curt Hanson. Despite that huge financial advantage, Burgmeier lost. NOM spent that money because Burgmeier supports allowing a constitutional vote on whether Iowa should ban same-sex marriage.

But so does Hanson.

So that means that NOM spent a bucketfull of money to support a pro-NOM candidate in order to defeat another pro-NOM candidate. And lost. The mind reels…

a. mcewen

September 2nd, 2009

look deeper. the explanation can’t be THAT simple.

Burr

September 2nd, 2009

I don’t think they care as long as they spread their message of hate and sow the seeds for future action. They just saw this election as an excuse to flood their airwaves.

Timothy Kincaid

September 2nd, 2009

Good catch, Jim.

Curiouser and curiouser.

I wonder if they wanted to portray this as “the voters are throwing out Democrats over their failure to put marriage up to a vote”.

Emily K

September 2nd, 2009

I agree, I wonder if it’s that simple. Is the Democratic one planning on putting our civil equality up to a vote immediately after taking office?

Pomo

September 2nd, 2009

Thats because the candidate NOM supported is a Republican and the other guy is a democrat. To conservative christian political groupe like NOM, Democrats are just as bad as da gayz!

Emily K

September 2nd, 2009

well if that truly is the case, then NOM is so stupid they deserve to have this kind of thing happen to them. Dems and Repubs are just two sides of the same coin. They need to get past labels and 1)become a PAC if that’s their true purpose and 2)get educated about a candidate’s stances rather than being obsessed with a the parties’ ever-blurring platform. That way they won’t end up losing money in a blackhole of a pointless cause.

Christopher Waldrop

September 3rd, 2009

Emily, I think they’re already “losing money in a blackhole of a pointless cause” by opposing marriage equality. You’re right that they should look more carefully at individual candidates’ stances, and while statistically more voters who call themselves Democrats favor marriage equality it’s harder to find Democrats in public office who favor marriage equality–or who are at least willing to admit it.

I haven’t looked into this beyond what I’ve read here, but your question, “Is the Democratic one planning on putting our civil equality up to a vote immediately after taking office?” may be the most relevant. Hanson may be opposed to marriage equality, but he may also consider putting it up to a vote an unnecessary waste of time and resources that would just stir up a lot of anger. And even though I may not agree with him on the issue of marriage equality, I would accept that as a reason for not putting it up to a vote.

Vast

September 3rd, 2009

Our State Democratic party leaders have point blank said that as long as they control the state house they will do every thing they can to prevent any such vote going to the state house floor. Hanson may be in favor of letting people vote for a constitutional amendment but there is just no way he will get enough support to get it on the floor, and frankly the economy is why he was elected. The real test will come in the 2010 legislative session, when Republicans will try to use every political procedural trick in the book to try and force a vote and then use that to hammer the Dems in the Nov election. This is why I believe that we will never have full equality with these state by state battles and that it will only come by way of the US Supreme Court.

Emily K

September 3rd, 2009

Thanks for the info, Vast.

BobbiCW

September 3rd, 2009

Any time NOM spends money foolishly it’s a good thing!

Timothy (TRiG)

September 4th, 2009

I’m agreeing with BobbiCW. That’s $86,000 they won’t be spending on other stuff.

It would be nice, of course, to see it going to something actually useful, but pouring it down the drain is better than using it to do harm.

TRiG.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.