Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

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 | LINK

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

September 2nd, 2009 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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?

September 2nd, 2009 | LINK

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 | LINK

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 | LINK

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.

September 3rd, 2009 | LINK

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 | LINK

Thanks for the info, Vast.

September 3rd, 2009 | LINK

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

Timothy (TRiG)
September 4th, 2009 | LINK

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.


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, never shared)

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