Comments on: Minnesota says NOM must disclose donors

By: Theo

Theo — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:48:05 +0000

I don’t agree with the conclusion of this post. I don’t believe that NOM has simply thumbed its nose at any state’s disclosure requirements. Instead, it has filed lawsuits challenging those disclosure requirements, while enjoying the benefit of delay that results while the legal process grinds forward. For example, NOM has tied up Maine’s investigation for nearly 2 years. The investigation is slowly making progress, but NOM likely will file another suit in state court if it is ordered to disclose its donor list. Eventually, though, NOM will run out of delaying tricks and the donors will be disclosed.

Even assuming that Kincaid’s post is right and NOM simply refuses to disclose in MN, then a voter could request the information from NOM and, upon being denied, could file suit against NOM seeking a court order compelling NOM’s compliance with the law. There wouldn’t be any need to wait for a MN agency to act.

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:29:47 +0000

In these straitened times, one would think the state would have a positive interest in fining these people for contempt of court.

TRiG.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 01:46:58 +0000

I’ve been puzzled for quite a while. We hear of NOM losing case after case. Yet donor lists don’t appear on gay blogs (and I’m sure if the lists were made public they would appear on many blogs). Why haven’t we seen those lists?

Thanks, Tim, for noting that NOM has simply been ignoring those court losses. That explains the missing lists. Could you expand more on why that is happening — and what we might do about it? Can you at least list the cases they’ve lost and ignored?

By: cd

cd — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:58:55 +0000

Much as Minnesota matters in its particular fashion, in the end the ban will probably pass narrowly with between 52% and 55% given the current electorate. Unfortunately.

Maybe the thing to do is to get NOM and whatever Mormon front group gets created into the worst possible position on this in California. Repeal of Prop. 8 is the priority for 2012, I’m quite sure.

That list of known donors so far linked in tim’s post is sort of interesting. They’re older white men who own businesses. The major one is a fervent religionist whose business is part of the Middle American religion-industrial complex. The others sound a bit more like the self-closeted gay anti-gay thang is going on in at least one case. Which seem typical profiles and motivations on that side of things.

By: jpeckjr

jpeckjr — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:14:57 +0000

The “chilling effect on free speech” argument is the only one NOM and MFC can make in public. It also supports their whole “be afraid of the gays” approach.

I bet the real reason they’re fighting disclosure is that disclosure would expose they are dependent on a small number of large donors. They are trying to convince everyone they have widespread support. Finding out they don’t, that they are dependent on a handful of big donors, would undermine the “our movement is growing” message. The truth would hurt them, so it must be suppressed.

By: james

james — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:09:51 +0000

@Arthur: NOM is not a religious organization. NOM is a 501(c)(4) organization under IRS tax-exempt categories. Religious organizations are 501(c)(3). They may be religiously motivated, and may imagine themselves to be church-like, but they would not fit the IRS definition of a religious organization.

By: Arthur

Arthur — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:54:41 +0000

Since NOM is a religious organization they will always claim to be above the law. The separation of church and state only is in effect when it is to their advantage…Much like the Republicans say they are for States Rights but for DOMA, abortion, etc.

By: james

james — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:55:28 +0000

30 years ago, a business/corporate donor supporting a GLBT cause would have wanted his/her donation to be kept secret to avoid the stigma of being associated with such a cause. They might have found a way to make the donation through a third party. The GLBT community would have taken some steps to shield such donors. Of course, disclosure laws weren’t what they are today.

As Edna Turnblad would say, “The times — they are a-changin’”

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:29:11 +0000

NOM wants “special rights”.

By: tim

tim — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 01:55:26 +0000

Well – we already know who some of the donors are:

http://minnesotaindependent.com/83305/anti-gay-marriage-constitutional-amendment-donors