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 loses in Maine, election laws are constitutional

Timothy Kincaid

August 19th, 2010

The National Organization for Marriage spent about 1.8 million dollars in Maine in 2009 to successfully support a referendum to block same-sex marriage. But in the process they refused to comply with Maine’s election laws about disclosure of expenditures and donors.

As part of their strategy, NOM sued the state in Federal court, claiming that campaign laws unconstitutionally burdened them and threatened their First Amendment rights to free speech. While this was not specifically tied to the Referendum 1 issue, but rather to NOM’s desire to anonymously fund campaign ads for or against specific candidates, it was their best chance at beating disclosure.

In this suit, they challenged:

* the definition of a Political Action Committee (PAC)
* independent expenditure requirements
* disclosure requirements.

Today District Judge Brock Hornby released his ruling. And – as some news sources are reporting – he agreed that the law is overly broad. But those areas of agreement with NOM were inconsequential to the conclusion: they must report the names of their donors.

Specifically, the judge found that within the language “for the purpose of promoting, defeating or influencing in any way the nomination or election of any candidate to political office”, the words “influencing in any way” were too broad and must be considered stricken from the language. But there is no ambiguity about NOM’s participation so this revision does not in any way impact NOM’s disclosure requirement.

The judge also struck down a requirement that any expenditure of $250 at any time must be disclosed within 24 hours as being unreasonably burdensome. But, again, this has no impact on NOM.

The judge recommended that the legislature tweak the law to adjust for those minor findings. (NPBN)

Anne Luther of the group Maine Citizens for Clean Elections is pleased with the court’s ruling.

“Our first reading of it is that this is 95 percent a vindication of Maine’s PAC reporting laws; that this is by and large upholding our reporting and disclosure laws. It’s entirely constitutional,” Luther says. “The judge carved out two very, very narrow exceptions, one of which may be able to be handled very easily by additional rule-making but these are very very narrow exceptions that leave the vast majority of our PAC reporting for this election coming up entirely intact.”

This is but one more victory leading up to the day that NOM is forced to disclose exactly on whose behalf they are a front. Current speculation is either the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church, but it could be any of several other wealthy but secretive sources.

But this ruling did disclose some information. For example, while they did have about 35,000 “members” last year, the dues from such membership only raised about $350,000, or around $10 each and there are not that many more contributions from small donors. NOM has a budget of about 13 million dollars for 2010. And about 90% of these funds will come in the form of large donors.

NOM is not a grass root organization.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

David C.
August 19th, 2010 | LINK

This only confirms my belief that NOM is mainly funded by a very small number of deep-pocketed individuals and/or organizations. Perhaps NOM will now, finally, be compelled to follow the law in all cases where they have sought to thwart open elections. Donors to NOM are now one step closer to being outed. Good.

Jonathan
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

All this secrecy really has me dying of anticipation. Rupert Murdoch? The Mormon, or Catholic, church? Neil Patrick Harris? Who is worth going to court to try and protect?

cooner
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

To perhaps state the obvious:

If it’s true that 90% of their funding comes from large donors, doesn’t that kind of make a huge dent in their whole “save their members from gay harassment” argument?

I mean, not to them — of course they’ll squawk and rant about perceived harm and oppression as much as they can — but it seems like the impression they’ve been trying to paint has been of a horde of queer thugs roving from door to door beating up individual families and scaring the children just for expressing their beliefs. That’s a very different picture, public-perception-wise, than unveiling a handful of one or more large corporate donors who’ve been funneling money into a political action group for some nefarious purpose they don’t want revealed.

cd
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

The National Organization of Mormon and Monaghan Money is going to have to detail its donors? Oh, the poor oppressed dears!

Pender
August 20th, 2010 | LINK

Fascinating to hear that big-donor dollars make up essentially all of their budget — I wasn’t aware.

I cannot wait for the day when their books are opened to the world. It will be very educational indeed.

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.