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 is DESPERATE for small donors

Timothy Kincaid

October 8th, 2012

We have long known that the National Organization for Marriage has been funded by a small handful of very significant donors. What I suspect is that once the nature of these donors is known and affiliates eliminated, it may turn out to just be one or two entities.

Whether it is the case that NOM is nothing other than a front for the Roman Catholic Church or it turns out that the few donors are all unrelated, they most definitely want to keep their identity secret. They have been fighting tooth and toenail to fund anti-gay campaigns without the public finding out who is behind their facade.

But they may be recognizing that their deception is about to come to an end. Although they are blustering and making absurd claims about the ruling, it seems that the State of Maine is going to finally be able to identify who has been dumping money into their state in hopes of denying gay Mainers their civil rights.

And NOM is running scared. They need to dilute their donor base as quickly as possible with as many small donors and individuals as possible.

The first indication of this effort was their oddly named Keep the Republic and Marriage website. They appealed to the pride of “traditional marriage” supporters and called for them to add their name (and make a donation). But in the week since launching the effort, they have 138 names. If you back out two blank names, Danilo Ramirez (who put his name down five times), and the employees/board of NOM, you end up with only maybe 125 donors. Not good.

So now they’ve doubled down. Literally.

I’m familiar with “matching grants”, where a donor agrees to match every dollar that is pledged during a set period. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen a double-matching grant, where for every dollar given a single donor gives two. But that’s what NOM is doing.

That’s right! Your gift of $50 will result in $150 to NOM. $100 becomes $300. $500 turns into $1,500. And if we reach our goal of $1,000,000, NOM will receive a total of $3,000,000 to protect marriage from Obama and his friends in the homosexual lobby!

They have a grand total of less than $80,000 in small donor dollars. And they have multi-millions to spend. They are desperate to say “we have thousands of donors and the average gift is $150”. And it doesn’t look like they are going to be able to do anything close to that.



October 8th, 2012 | LINK

There are different Federal tax rules on how much one can deduct (and other things) depending on whether the donation is to a “public charity” or a “private foundation” – one of the tests for which category an organization belongs in depends on whether they are a “publicly supported organization” – if they only have a couple of large donors, they might fail this test and be a “private foundation” for tax purposes.

October 9th, 2012 | LINK

What confuses this issue, and me, most is that now that SCOTUS has shunned their case, exactly what is the State of Maine Ethics Committee doing that holds up the disclosure?

Are members of that Ethics Committee supporters of NOM? Truly how else can NOM claim that the ethics committee has anything going on that will stop their requirement to reveal the donations?

Why have the good guys not run into court demanding a subpoena duces tecum and accompanying hearing to decide the penalty against NOM for continuing to flout the law?

I know I am not the only person with these questions,,,,,anyone have answers?

October 11th, 2012 | LINK

How much longer before the officers of NOM get hit with contempt citations and either comply with court rulings or go to jail?

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.